PC Min 09/28/1993CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
7:30 P.M. TUESDAY
SEPTEMBER 28, 1993
crrY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 1993, was called to order
at 7:35 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell,
California by Chairperson Alne, and the following proceedings were had, to
wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
I. Alne
Lee Akridge
Mel Lindstrom
Jay Perrine
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner:
Jane Meyer-Kennedy
Staff Present:
Community
Development Director:
Associate Planner:
Senior Planner:
Planner II:
Planner I:
Ci~ Engineer:
Assistant City Engineer:
Traffic Engineer:
Ci~ Attorney:
Reporting Secretary:
Steve Piasecki
Tim J. Haley
Randy Tsuda
Curtis Banks
Julie McCullough
Joan Bollier
Michelle Quinney
Gary Kruger
William Seligmann
Corinne A. Shinn
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: On motion of Commissioner Akridge, seconded by
Commissioner Perrine, the Planning Commission minutes of
September 14, 1993, were approved (3-0-1-1). Commissioner
Lindstrom abstained from the vote as he was not at the
Septemb~er 14, 1993 meeting and Commissioner Meyer-
Kennedy was absent.
Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1993 Page 2
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
The Planning Commission presented outgoing Commissioner David Fox
with Resolution 2873, commemorating his years of service. Commissioner
Fox accepted the Resolution and expressed his appreciation for the
opportunity to serve.
ELECTION OF VICE CHAIR
Upon motion made by Commissioner Akridge, seconded by Commissioner
Lindstrom, Commissioner Perrine was selected as Vice Chair of the Planning
Commission, a position left vacant by the recent completing of
Commissioner Wilkinson's term.
COMMUNICATIONS
There were no communications.
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
There were no agenda modifications or postponements.
ORAL REOUESTS
There were no oral requests.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairperson Alne read Item No. 1 into the record.
1. UP 93-12
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Michael
Rowe, on behalf of Rob and Anne Naragon, for approval
of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a 1,241 square foot
second story addition to an existing non-conforming
dwelling (insufficient garage setback) on property located
at 234 N. Second Street in an R-l-6 (Single Family
Residential) Zoning District.
Mr. Tim Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report noting the
following:
· The applicant is seeking a Use Permit to allow an addition to a single-
family dwelling.
· Matter is before the Planning Commission as a result of an insufficient
setback of 22.5 feet rather than the required setback of 25 feet.
· Property is located on Second Street at Latimer.
· The 1,241 square foot addition includes a second story addition and the
dosing in of the breezeway from the current residence to the garage.
· The zoning allows this addition with a Conditional Use Permit.
Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1993 Page 3
The architectural style compliments the existing residence and area.
The setback is similar to other previously approved addition projects.
Staff recommends approval of this project subject to the Conditions of
Approval.
Commissioner Jay Perrine presented the report of the Site and Architectural
Review Committee as follows:
· The Site and Architectural Review Committee met with both architects
on the project and reviewed the proposed plans.
· The Site and Architectural Review Committee recommends approval of
the proposal as submitted.
MOTION:
On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by
Commissioner Akridge, the hearing was unanimously closed.
(4-0-1). Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy was absent.
MOTION:
On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by
Commissioner Akridge, the Planning Commission adopts
Resolution 2874 approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow a
1,241 square foot addition to an existing non-conforming
dwelling (insufficient setback) on property located at 234 N.
Second Street.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Alne, Akridge, Lindstrom, Perrine
None
Meyer-Kennedy
Chairperson Alne read Item No. 2 into the record.
2. GP 93-02
TA 93-O2
Public Hearing to consider the adoption of the San Tomas
Area Neighborhood Plan and the associated General Plan
and Zoning text amendments necessary to implement the
plan.
Mr. Curtis Banks, Planner II, presented the staff report noting the following:
· The discussion will encompass:
· An Overview of the Study Process;
the Plan itself (Land Use and Transportation Recommendations);
Implementation of the Plan.
Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1993 Page 4
The San Tomas Neighborhood Study was authorized in 1991 and began
in January 1993. All residents and property owners in the affected area
where invited to the initial meeting.
The area was divided into four areas. Each area selected representatives
to serve on a Neighborhood Work Group. The Work Groups for each
area developed goals and policies for their neighborhood. The policies
for each group were then forwarded to the San Tomas Study Task Force.
The Task Force reconciled the Neighborhood Plans and drafted the San
Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. The Task Force was comprised of two
neighborhood representatives of the four areas, two City Council
members, two Planning Commissioners (Alne, Meyer-Kennedy) and the
City's Architectural Advisor.
In July, a community meeting was held to review the draft proposal.
Land Use Recommendations: Front, side and rear yard setback
requirements are to be increased under the Plan. To lessen the impact
on existing homes, extensions along existing building lines would be
allowed under the Plan.
Building Coverage/Floor Area Ratio: The Task Force felt that some
homes in the area are too large for their lot size. The current coverage
allowed is 40%. Reduction to 35% for lots zoned R-l-8 through R-l-16 is
proposed.
Building Height: The Task Force felt that the current allowable building
height of 35 feet was too high and recommends a reduction to 28 feet.
This is comparable to other cities. Twenty-eight feet (28 ft) is sufficient
for two-story homes.
Lot Width: Current requirements for lot width is an average minimum
width of 60 feet. Under the Plan, recommended lot width would be
increased to a minimum of 60 feet.
Front Yard Paving: The Plan recommends that a minimum of 50% of
the front yard remain unpaved to allow for landscaping.
Landscaping/New Developments: New developments would be
required to provide one tree per 2,000 square feet of net lot area and
would be required to meet the WEL$ Standards (Water Efficient
Landscape Standards).
Accessory Buildings: Plan contains new setback requirements for
accessory buildings.
Design Review: Currently development of R-l-8 or greater requires
Planning Commission approval. Proposed in the Plan is the
establishment of design criteria to provide guidance and consistency in
design review. The criteria is not intended to prescribe one specific style
or type of architectural.
General Plan and Zoning Changes: General Plan amendments and or
Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1993 Page 5
zone changes would be required to be at least equal to the predominate
general plan and or zoning designation of parcels surrounding the
subject site. No general plan amendment in the San Tomas Area could
exceed the low-medium density classification of 6-13 units per acre.
Planned Development Zones
· Planned Development (PD) zones provide more flexibility than is
allowed in conventional zoning districts. Specific conditions are
negotiated on a case by case basis. Area residents felt that recent PD
projects were not compatible with the area. The San Tomas Plan
recommends criteria for low density projects (less than six units per
acre) and low-medium density projects (6-13 units per acre).
· Low density residential projects would be required to conform to
the standards for single family development except that private
streets would be permitted. The minimum lot size for projects in
PD zones would have to be at least equal to the predominate
minimum lot size requirement of parcels surrounding the subject
site.
· The standards for low-medium density projects are intended to
integrate the project with the surrounding neighborhood. The
standards require that to the extent possible, low-medium density
projects foster the appearance of single family development.
Mr. Gary Kruger, Traffic Engineer, presented the Transportation Policies of
the Plan.
· Development of Street Standards: The Plan calls for the minimum
street width possible to maintain traffic flow, safety and the community's
expressed desire for a rural appearance.
· The San Tomas Area Neighborhood is unique in that none of the streets
go all the way through. It was determined that this is a desired trait. It is
an explicit policy of the Plan not to connect any of the streets (i.e.
Hacienda, Westmont, Virginia, Harriet).
Street Traffic Flow Designations: Some street classifications will be
downgraded and others upgraded within the Plan based upon current
usage. It is expected that the opening of Highway 85 will lower traffic in
the San Tomas Area including San Tomas Aquino, Burrows and
Westmont. Decisions on West Parr and Capri will be reviewed after
Highway 85 is open. There are no arterial streets within the San Tomas
Area and none are proposed.
Ms. Michelle Quinney, Assistant City Engineer, presented the following:
· The intent of the Transportation Policies are to maintain the rural
Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1993 Page 6
appearance of the area, provide more consistent street improvements
and to keep through traffic out of the area. The Task Force has
developed new street design standards which reduce the required right-
of-way as follows:
Private Lane: 20 foot street width with 5 foot public easement
on each side. Traffic is less than 100 cars per day.
There is no street parking and 2 on-site parking
spots are required. Currently not regulated.
Local Private Access:
27 foot street width with 1.5 foot easement on
each side. Parking allowed on one side of the
street. Two parking spots required on site.
Minor Local Access
New Construction:
Minor Local Access
17 foot (1/2 street) width with 3 foot shoulder
and 20 foot right-of-way. No curbs, gutters or
sidewalks are required.
Existing Development:
If more than 51% of an existing street has street
improvements, the remainder of the street will
have street improvements installed. If less than
50% of an existing street has street
improvements, the remainder of the street will
not be required to install improvements.
Major Local Access:
36 foot street with 50 foot right-of-way. Curbs,
gutters and sidewalks are required to be
installed. Any new developments would be
required to have the curbs, gutters and sidewalks
installed as well as streetlights at the
intersections.
Minor Collectors:
New construction would require 18 foot (1/2
street) width which equals 11 foot travel lane
and 7 foot parking lane.
Major Collectors:
Over 18,000 automobiles per day travel on major
collectors. Requires 8 foot parking lane, 15 foot
travel lane (11 foot vehicle/4 foot bike lane).
Minor Arterial:
If parking allowed, requires 40 foot (1/2 street)
width and a street medium.
Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1993 Page 7
· Street Improvements & Deferred Agreements
· Street improvements would not be required on new minor local
access streets. On existing minor local access streets where
improvements currently exist on 50% or less of the streets, no
improvements will be required.
· On minor local access streets where more than 50% of the street has
improvements, the requirement will be to continue to install
matching improvements at the time development occurs.
· Street improvements (curb, gutter and sidewalk) are required for all
streets classified as major local access or greater. If 50% or less of the
street has improvements a deferred improvement agreement will
be taken. Deferred improvement agreements will be reviewed
every four years at which time the improvements will either be
installed or the agreement will be renegotiated. If the agreement is
no longer necessary, the security bond is returned, and a notice of
fulfillment is issued.
Excess Public Right of Way: A process is available to return the excess
public right-of-way to property owners.
Discussion re Unimproved Streets: Streets without curbs, gutters or
sidewalks deteriorate faster, experience more puddles and pot holes.
Uniform parking space is not as available and pedestrians are not
afforded the safety of sidewalks.
Mr. Curtis Banks, Planner II, discussed implementation of the Plan as follows:
· The San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan would be implemented
through the following actions:
1. Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to reference the
San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan.
2. The Circulation element of the General Plan will be amended to
reflect the San Tomas Area Street Standards and the proposed
changes to the street classification.
3.The Campbell Municipal Code will be amended as needed.
4. Any projects submitted prior to the date the Plan becomes effective
will be exempt for the requirements of the Plan.
· Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following
action:
1. Recommend that the City Council grant a Negative Declaration.
2. Recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution adopting the
San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan.
3. Recommend that the City Council amend the Circulation elements.
4.' Recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance to accept the
proposed text amendments.
Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1993 Page 8
Commissioner Jay Perrine questioned the difference between a policy and a
plan.
Mr. Curtis Banks, Planner II, replied that the San Tomas Area Neighborhood
Plan was similar to the Downtown Development Plan with some aspects
acting as law and other areas as policy.
Chairperson Alne addressed those in attendance prior to opening the Public
Hearing, encouraging the identification of any aspect of the Plan that may be
missing or misstated.
Public Hearing re Item No. 2
Ben Deovlet, 933 Robin Lane.
· Asked if the 50% rule could apply to storm drain installation as he
disagreed that they were unnecessary for Minor Local Access streets.
Michelle Quinney, Assistant City Engineer, replied:
· Matter would be considered.
Steve Schnur, 1425 Capri Drive.
· Too much traffic is coming through the San Tomas Area from residents
of Los Gatos who are attempting to avoid traffic on Winchester.
· Made the suggestion that Capri be blocked at W. Parr. Indicated that he
had spoken with neighbors who were supportive of this idea.
Gary Kruger, Traffic Engineer, replied:
· It is too soon to determine the ultimate fate of Capri and/or W. Parr.
· Currently Capri borders on Major Local Access and Major Collector with
2501 cars per day. It is possible that Capri could drop down to a Local
Access street.
· Within the next couple of years (or sooner) this issue will have to be
addressed particularly when it is determined what impact the opening of
Route 85 has had on traffic in the area and a decision on W. Parr has
been made. It is anticipated that Route 85 will dramatically improve
traffic congestion in the San Tomas Area.
Larry Stein, 1150 Steinway Avenue.
· Expressed concern regarding the setback requirements and believes that
the stricter requirements will limit a property owner's ability to build
anything other than small, pointed buildings, like a pyramid.
Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1993 Page 9
A current homebuilder in the area, Mr. Stein expressed his dismay at the
idea that the required sidewalk improvements he recently had installed
at his cost will end up being the only sidewalks on his street. He
mentioned his young son who will soon be riding a bike and questioned
where the child would be able to do so in a neighborhood with no
sidewalks.
Susan Kern, 1350 Abbott Avenue.
· Asked that a definition of "rural appearance" be developed.
· Felt that the status quo was not progressive.
· Indicated that she wanted to see more improvements in the area
including streets rather than fewer improvements. Storm drains are
needed as during the rainy season the area is a "flood" zone. As she
reads the study, if the street lighting in her area goes out it will not be
replaced which she believes is a safety hazard.
Mike Mackering, President of the Quito Little League.
· The Plan does not address recreation areas, specifically of interest to Mr.
Mackering is the Quito Little League field which serves a league of more
than 500 children and growing. He hopes to see a successful co-existence
between the Plan and available recreational facilities in the San Tomas
Area Neighborhood. He specifically wants recreation area designations.
John
·
Dirnberger, 1200 Steinway.
Questioned the minimum number of units per acre and how the
minimum standard is determined based upon the neighboring lots.
Expressed his belief that blocking off roads in the area was detrimental to
the residents of the area.
Suggested that Open Spaces should be mentioned in the Plan.
Tom
Beatty, 842 Old Orchard.
Commended Curtis Banks and the study group for listening to the
participants of the public meetings.
Asked that Deferred Improvements not be revisited every four years.
Chairperson Alne, replied.
· Review of Deferred Improvement Agreements could result in the
property owners getting money back if the deferred improvements are
deemed unnecessary and the Agreement could subsequently be canceled.
Michelle Quinney, Assist City Engineer, added:
· The review is believed necessary because many old Street Improvement
Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1993 Page 10
Bonds are held indefinitely.
Mary Donahue, 1441 Juanita.
* Asked for clarification on what 6-13 units per acre represented.
Curtis Banks, Planner II, replied.
· 6-13 units per acre generally represents townhomes and 20 units per acre
and greater represents apartments.
Mary Donahue, 1441 Juanita, continued.
· People who attended the Public Meetings indicated a desire to see lot size
developments equal the use of the largest lot in the area rather than the
average or "take the high road." Ms. Donahue questioned whether an
apartment development could exist in the San Tomas Neighborhood
Area.
Chairperson Alne, replied.
· The Neighborhood Plan attempts to neither deviate from nor distract
with the area but rather blend in. However, the freedom must remain
for the property owner to install on his/her property the project that that
person wants.
Dave Perry, 756 Old Orchard Road.
· Indicated his belief that his area is treated as a "second class citizen".
There are no sidewalks and no improvements. He wants to see their
share of maintenance in the area.
Chairperson Alne, replied.
· The overwhelming majority of the participants want to leave the area
without sidewalks.
· The Plan does not implement a reduction in maintenance services.
However, roads that do not have the gutter, curb and sidewalk
improvements will experience more rapid deterioration of the street.
They will not receive an expanded schedule of maintenance to counter
that deterioration.
Richard McCullough, 771 Old Orchard.
· A former CalTrans employee, he indicated that all roads, regardless of
whether there were improvements or not, require maintenance.
Joan Bollier, City Engineer.
· Reiterated the fact that roads without gutter, curb and sidewalk
Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1993 Page 11
improvements will experience more rapid deterioration; however, they
will not receive an expanded schedule of maintenance to counter that
deterioration.
Patricia Heintz, 1759 $ilacci Drive.
· Questioned the upgrading of her street from a Minor Local Access to a
Major Local Access. Wondered if the traffic study was conducted from a
corner which ended up counting traffic that immediately turned off into
one of the side streets in the area.
Gary Krugar, Traffic Engineer, replied.
· As she suspected, the traffic count was conducted from an end of the
block. However, the recommendation of a change of designation has no
mpact on the street. Since the street already has its improvements, there
are no changes resulting from the new street designation based on the
Plan.
David Neiman, 1360 Burrows.
· Grew up in a "cookie cutter" neighborhood and enjoys the distance from
the street of the homes in his neighborhood. Wants to see the distance
from the road remain large.
MOTION:
On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by
Commissioner Akridge, the hearing was unanimously closed.
(4-0-1). Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy was absent.
Commissioner Lindstrom clarified, based upon comments/questions
regarding Open Space/Recreational Facilities within the San Tomas Area
Neighborhood Plan, that the Plan covers street and home designs and the
atmosphere of the area. The Open Space element of the General Plan covers
Open Space.
Chairperson Alne commented that the questions and statements made by
residents at this meeting are helpful and will likely be covered and/or looked
into by the staff.
MOTION:
On motion of Commissioner Lindstrom, seconded by
Commissioner Akridge, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council:
1) Grant a Negative Declaration for Application GP 93-02, TA
93-02 and the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan;
3) Adopt Resolution 2875 approving the San Tomas Area
Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 1993 Page 12
2)
4)
Neighborhood Plan~
Adopt Resolution 2876 approving the proposed
amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements of
the General Plan (GP 93-02); and
Adopt Resolution 2877 to create an Ordinance approving
the proposed text amendments (TA 93-02).
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Alne, Akridge, Lindstrom, Perrine
None
Meyer-Kennedy
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director,
was accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m., to the next
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 1993, at 7:30
p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell,
California.
Respectfully submitted: C~
.~.~ ................... --~e~~ding Secretary
ATTEST: ~ ..... .-"~ ~ ~ ~-~,~---"~ '
Steve Piasecki, Secretary