Loading...
PC Min 12/08/1992 CIT '_," DF PLANNING COh, lh, llS$1ON MINUTES December 8, 1992 City Council Chambers 70 North First Street 7:30 P.M. Campbell, California t~he Planning Commission meeting of December 8, 1992, 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: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chairperson: David Fox Jay Perrine (arrived at 8:07 p.m.) Jane Meyer-Kennedy Mark Wilkinson I. (Bud) Alne Commissioners Absent: Alana Higgins (excused) Staff Present: Director of Planning, Steve Piasecki Associate Planner, Tim J. Haley Planner I, Gloria M. Sciara Reporting Secretary, Karon Shaban City Engineer, Joan Bollier City Attorney, William Seligmann APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: /HOT/ON: On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission minutes of November 24, 1992, were unanimously approved ameruted to correct the misspdling of Commissioner Wilkinson's nanu~ (4-0-2), Commissioners Higgins a~ Perrine ~'ng absent. COMMUNICATIONS: items of communication were included with the packet distribution. The l'ollowing item was received after the packets were delivered: Letter from Mr. Steve Saray, SarayCo Group, dated December 7, 1992, requesting phasing of the proposed project at 132 and t46 Redding Road, Item No. 4 on the agenda. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Chairperson Fox suggested moving Item No. 3 forward, since the bank has foreclosed on the property located at 700 West Hamilton Avenue, and the applicant is requesting removal from Calendar. He read the application into the record. Item No. 3. GP 92-02/ZC 92-03/S 92.07: Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. and Mrs. Leonard Metz, for approval of the following: a) A General Plan Amendment, changing the Land Use Element designation on the southerly portion of the site from Commercial to Low/Medium Density Residential Zoning; b) A Zone change from C-2-S (General Commercial) to PD (Planned Development) on the southerly portion of the site; and, c) A Site and Architectural Permit to modify the northerly portion of the site for landscaping and parking to an existing office. The property is located at 700 West Hamilton Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. MOT/ON: On Motion of Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Wilkinson, Item No. 3, GP 92-02/ZC 92.03/S 92-07 was unanimously removed from Calendar. Item No. Was moved forward to be heard after consideration of the Consent Calendar. ORAL REOUESTS: There were no oral requests. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Alne asked that Item No. 2 be pulled from consent and reconsidered in January. Chairperson Fox read the item into the record. Item No. 2. Appointment of Architectural Advisor and Landscape Advisor (through September t 993). MOT/OH On motion of Commissioner Meyer-Ken~, seconded by Commissioner Wilkinson, Item No. 2, was pulled from the Consent Calendar for consideration at the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 1992. The motion was unanimously approvec~ 4-0-2, Commissioners Higgins and Perrine being absent for the vote. Chairperson Fox read Item No. 1.into the record. Item No. 1. Approval of the 1993 Planning Commission Schedule. Planning (3mmi. ssion min~s of l~mnber 8, 1992 On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Wilkinson, the Planning Commission schedule of meetings for 1993 calendar year, was unanimously approvea~ 4-0-2, Commissioners Higgins and Perrine being absent for the vo~ Chairperson Fox read the item into the record. Item No. I 1. Informational item l~or the Planning Commission regarding Code Enforcement at property located at 1300 Whiteoaks Road, occupied b~' San Jose Mercury News. Director of Planning, Mr. Steve Piasecki, presented a brief background of the alleged zoning violation and noise nuisance at this location. He noted the following: * A noise analysis was received by the Planning Department from Edward Pack and Associates whictq identified existing noise levels and outlined various mitigation measures. * Followup by staff. * Site inspection indicated improvements in noise levels. * Monitoring of the property by staff~ between the hours of 1:45 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. indicated noise levels exceed code specifications. * Review of the Noise Element of the General Plan. * Yhe Commission is being asked to hear the evidence, listen to Mercury News' mitigation plans, receive input from the complainants, and to decide an appropriate action. He suggested that an interpretation to the Noise Element of the General Plan or allowable uses within an MI Zoning District may be necessary in the future, should this problem continue. Commissioner Alne asked City Attorney, Bill Seligmann, about assumptions as they relate to the ordinance. Mr. Seligmann stated that complaints substantiated by a reasonable person would be applied in this instance~ Chairperson Fox asked if the complainants would like to come forward. Ms. Ronda Krnetz (daughter), on behalf of Mr. and Mrs~ James Blair (also present), 5822 Endmoor Drive, San Jose, addressed the Commission, noting the following: * The noise has been disturbing her parents for 8 months. Her father's recent health has not been good and it is impossible for him to get a good night sleep when newspaper deliveries are taking place less than 75 feet from his bedroom window~ * Quoted the noise element, stating that the City will not enforce it. * Loudness, intensive noise and vibration, the frequency of the noise, and sporadic nature of the noise is intolerable. * A soundwall has not been installed, as proposed, nor have the doors have not been closed, as requested b~' the City. Commissioner Alne asked why the problem was addressed in April o~ t~is year, when Mercury News has been operating at this location since July 1991. Additionally, he asked about the health of Mr. Planning Commissi~ minu~es of ~ 8, 1992 Blair, and asked for the exact location of the residence from the business operation. Ms. Kmetz stated that the operation used to take place on the other side of the building, and explained the nature o~ her father's illness. Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner l, added that Hofl~an Drive is a private street. Chairperson Fox asked if a business existed at this location prior to Mercury News. Mr. Piasecki indicated that the building existed prior to Mercury Newspaper's operation Mr. ~tames Sidney, Acoustical Engineer, discussed the barrier between the business and the residence, and the sound analysis generated by Mercury Newspaper. He discussed the DBA sound levels which exceed acceptable levels, noted acceptable ambient noise levels, and recommended that Mercury News move the operation or mitigate the impacts to adjacent residents. Commissioner Perrine arrived at 8.q~7 p.m. Mr. John Hammit, 750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, Senior Vice President, of Mercury Newspaper, addressed the Commission, as follows: Discussed the sound study conducted by Mercury News. * The newspaper nas spent thousands of dollars attempting to mitigate the noise impact, and is still in the process of implementation of the measures. * It is the intent and desire of Mercury News to mitigate the concerns expressed by Ms. Kmetz. He noted that it would take some additional time to mitigate all the noise impacts to the adjacent property owner, and asked for more time to do so. Commissioner Alne and Mr_ Hammit discussed specifics on how this would be achieved. Mr. Hammit noted that the operation is located on a corner at Highway 17 and Camden Avenue; that an engineering study was authorized and paid for by Mercury News; and that the study o~ered mitigation measures for noises. He stated that the Mercury News was trying to abate the situation, however, the cost, to date, for implementing the study's measures is $ I 0,000 He noted that more needs to be done and asked for additional time. Commissioner Alne asked if the plan included moving the lift, and Mr. Hammit stated that it did. Mr. Hammit explained that currently the lift is used to prevent the trucks from coming into the building. Moving the lift to the rear of the building, away from the residential property will enable workers to close the doors during unloading, and also trucks would no longer need to "rev-up" their engines to keep the wheels up. Ms. Ronda Kmetz, again pleaded with the Commission to halt operations at the site until all mitigation measures are met Planning Gnnmission minut~ of Dm~ber 8, 1992 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairperson Fox read the application into the record. Item No. 4. ZC 92-04/PD 92-02: Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Steve Saray, on behalf of SarayCo Group, to allow the following: a) Zone Change from R-M-S (Multiple-Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); and, b) Planned Development Permit to allow construction of 12 townhomes. The property is located at 132 and 146 Redding Road, in an R-M-S (Multiple- Family Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, noting the following: * The applicant's request is for a Zone Change and a Planned Development Permit to develop t2 townhomes on the proposed property The current zone is R-M-S, which typically allows apartment developments with a maximum density of 14 dwelling units for this site. * Elevations and a colored rendering of the proposed prOject were displayed. * Site layout depicting common areas and open space including a swimming pool and retention o~ two mature pine trees. * The Applicant is proposing 3 1/2 parking spaces per unit. * The site is surrounded by townhomes on t~ree sides and a single-family residence on the l~ourth. * Before the Commission is a request from the applicant, asking for consideration of phasing of the prOject. In the first phase six units will be constructed with the remainder constructed in the second phase.. Staff supports this request and has provided a development schedule for the Commission's consideration. * Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution asking that City Council grant a Negative Declaration, approve the Zone Change from R-MS (Multiple-Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); and, that the Planned Development Permit be approved for construction of 12 townhomes in two phases. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked about the landscape plan, specifically about the trees cited for removal. Mr. Haley explained that the two mature pine trees would be retained and that several small fruit trees would be removed. Vice Chairperson Alne presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report of November 25, t992~ as follows: * The Committee considered relocation of ti~e swimming pool to the rear of the property, however, decided against relocation. * The Committee suggested that the fence along the open space be modified to prevent an attractive nuisance to children in the community, and to provide privacy for swimmers. The Committee is supportive o~ the application with the fence Planning Cbnnniss~ minutes of ~ 8, 1992 modification. Chairperson Fox opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Steve Saray, applicant, 150 East Campbell Avenue, Suite 20lA, addressed the Commission regarding his request to phase the development proposal. He explained that the request was prompted by difficulties obtaining funding for the entire project. He asked for Planning Commission support of the project including the phasing. Public Comment: Scott Schultz, 165 Shelley Avenue, was supportive of the proposal, however, he questioned the merit of Mr. Saray's builder, stating that his recently constructed townhome has a leaky roof. He added that the proposed project is similar in design to the other. Chairperson Fox pointed out that the Commission's duty is to judge land use issues and not to investigate allegations of leaky roofs. City Attorney, Mr. William Seligmann, interceded that the City of Campbell's Building Division enforces substandard living conditions within the City. Mr. Schultz indicated opposition to the removal of the fruit trees. No one else addressed the Commission. MO~O~ On motion of Commissioner ~.Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Wilkinson, the Public tlearing was unanimoudy dosed Chairperson Fox was not supportive of the proposal because phasing of the project could eliminate 70 percent of the landscaping. He asked the Commission to require the applicant to ensure completion of the landscaping in the first phase. Commissioner Alne questioned whether economic conditions will change within the time specified in the Development Schedule presented by Staff, and if Staff is satisfied that Phase 1 of the proposal would be acceptable to tine City if Phase 2 was not completed. Mr. Haley indicated that Phase I of the project could stand on its own merits, that the development schedule demonstrates how this can be achieved. Mr. Haley noted that the result, if Phase 2 was abandoned or delayed, would be a project of less density and more open space, than what was originally requested by the applicant. Chairperson Fox suggested that the Conditions of Approval be modified requiring a Hanning Gomm~'on minutes of ~ 8, 1992 6 landscape plan to be submitted to the Commission illustrating a complete landscape design for Phase I of the project. Further, the Ctqairperson indicated opposition of the architectural design, specifically the massing along tf~e street frontage, and suggested that the roof lines be modified. Mr. Haley pointed out that the units are proposed at 1,900 square feet and to require additional setbacks would limit the size of the units and/or the number of units proposed. Chairperson Fox stated that his intention was not to destroy the project, however, it is an opportune time to take advantage of design modifications. Commissioner Wilkinson reflected on the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting of November 25, 1992, where it was determined that the architectural style was appropriate, that massing was not an issue, and that similar projects exist in the area. Additionally, Commissioner Wilkinson noted that the proposed project is attractive and suggested that the concerns expressed relate to design and are a matter of taste. Discussion ensued between Chairperson Fox and Commissioner Wilkinson relative to the design and ardnitectural preferences. Commissioner Perrine asked Staff for suggestions relating to redesign of the proposed project. Mr. Haley offered two options: 1) The Commission could ask the applicant to submit a new set of plans to the Site and Architectural Review Committee addressing the massing to reduce and scale down the number of units; or, 2) The Commission could continue the item for one month allowing the Applicant and the Staff time to explore design options. On motion of Commissioner W'dkinson, seconded by Commissioner illne, Resolution No. 2833, was adopted, recommouiing that City Council grant a Negative Declaration and approve the Zone Change; Resolution No. 2834, was adopted recommending that City Council approve the Planned Devdopment Permit, allowing construction of the proposed project and support the applivant's request to devdop the project in two phases. The recommoutation to Co~ shall include the Findings of Approval as provided by Staff, an amemied Devdopment Schedule and amended Conditions of Approval requi~4ng the appliamt to provide landsmping for the entire project site; ana~ that said landscaping shall be installed prior to ovcupatio~ of the units. The motion carried (4-1- D by the following roll call vote: Perrine, Meyer-Kennedy, Wilkinson, Alne Planning Onnmissi~ minutes of ~ 8, 1992 7 NOE ~' Commissioners: Fox ABSENK: Commissioner:. Higgins ABSTAIN: Commissioner~. None Chairperson Fox read the Item into the record. Item No. 5. V 92-03/S 92-09: Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. David Barnes for a variance to approve the following: a) Variance to allow a second detached structure (garage) on the front half of the lot. b) Site and Architectural permit to allow a singlewfamily home. The property is located at 1045 South San Tomas Aquino Road, in an R-1-9 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District Ms. Gloria M. Sciara, Planner I, presented the staff report, noting the following: * The applicant's request for a variance to allow a second detached structure on the front half of the lot, and a Site and Architectural Permit to allow a single-family home. * The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and zoning for the area, except for the variance. Under the ordinance having two accessory buildings on a lot within its current zone is subject to approval by the Planning Commission. Staff feels a variance can be approved to allow the request because of the shape of the lot, the location of the pool house is not visible from the street, and the proposal allows substantial landscaping of the yard areas~ ~ Staff is recommending approval since the proposal is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The proposal posses no constraints on the community and will have no adverse impacts. The development is appropriate for the property. Commissioner Alne provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee's report of November 25, 1992, recommending approval of the application as presented. He added that if the applicant did not have a detached garage, the proposal would not have come before the Commission, and could have been approved at staff level. Chairperson Fox opened the Public Hearing. Public Comment: Mr. Tom Serpa, 1031 South San Tomas Aquino Road, representing two of the property owners neighboring the proposed development. He read comments from Ester Garcia, indicating that she had previously asked the City to allow her to build a granny fiat on her property and was denied based upon the open space requirements of the City, and she indicated that there is not enough open space on the proposed site to allow a new t~anning Commission minutes of D~mber 8, 1992 building. Mr. Charles Chapman, located across the street from the proposal, wrote that he opposed the prOject because the two-story element being proposed is not compatible to the scale of neighboring properties. Mr~ Serpa expressed his concerns relative to the scale and to the two-story element. He spoke about the San Tomas Study sessions that he t~as attended wherein the City discourages the development of massive homes. Mr. Kia Naficy, Architect, addressed the Commission stating that the existing homes in the area lack integrity with respect to design, that the proposed home is proportionate to the size and shape of the lot. He stated that materials similar to existing homes were initiated into the proposed project and that the proposal would enhance the community. Further, Mr. Naficy indicated that there are other two-story homes in the area. Ms~ Rhonda Morates-Serpa, 1031 South San Tomas Aquino Road, expressed opposition to the proposed project because of its massive size. She was supportive of a single-story structure. Mr. Max Doug, 1299 Monroe, was opposed to the proposal because of the massiveness. He was concerned that his privacy would be lost, and that the windows proposed would further impact his privacy. Mr~ Kia Naficy addressed the concerns expressed, noting that no significant windows look into the neighboring properties, the main dining room provides no view of adjoining properties, the two upstairs bedrooms are not being used, and that the project was designed to eliminate visual impacts to adjoining neighbors~ Mr. Serpa spoke again asking what the plan indicates the front doors face his residence on the north side. The Chairperson informed Mr. Serpa that those doors lead into the kitchen and laundry room. Ms. Eileen Dunsech, 86 San ~omas Aquino Road, asked about the driveway Chairperson Fox explained that the plans indicate the driveway will be in front of the property. No one else asked to speak. On motion of Commissioner Wili~'nson , seconded by Commissioner Alne, the Public Hearing was unanimously dosed. Commissioner Alne asked staff about City standards for setbacks relative to second-story buildings and how it relates to the question of privacy. Mr. William Seligmann, City Attorney, informed the Commission that approval of this project requires the Commission to consider privacy relative to location of the windows, and the Planning ~ minutes of l)~t~mber 8, 1992 9 architectural aspects of the structures as far as the distance from adjoining properties. Commissioner Perrine suggested that the plans indicate that it would be difficult for a person located in the proposed upstairs bedroom to look into an adjoining yard, that the proposed garage would not obstruct the sidewalk, vehicular movement or on-street parking. The over all architectural design is slightly different from existing homes, however, it is the right ot~ a home owner to build his home the way he wants as long as it complies with City codes. Commissioner Wilkinson noted that the Site and Architectural Review Committee investigated other homes in the community and found various two-story homes, some with more square footage that what is being proposed on this lot. Adjoining residential properties are not being deprived of any rights. The architect has attempted to avoid infringement on privacy of the neighborsl Chairperson Fox asked why the driveway is depicted as gravel. ~ON On motion of Commissioner PerHn~ seoonded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Public Hearing was re-opened to allow the architect to ~. Mr~ Naficy explained that Mr. Barnes, the applicant, would like to use the accessory structure l%r his hobby, carpentry work. Additionally, it was an attempt to reduce the impervious area. Mr. Serpa questioned why the Commission would allow this type of home in an area being considered for retention of the rural character. Chairperson Fox noted that the proposal does not violate the ordinance relative to floor area, or lot coverage, and that the Commission is not inclined to comment on architectural style. City Attorney Seligmann, indicated that the Commission could consider the rural character the area to see i~ the design is appropriate. Commissioner Perrine asked why a Site and Architectural Permit is required. In response, Ms~ Sciara stated that within an R-l-8 through R-l-1 6 zone a Site and Architectural Permit is required. On motion of Commissioner Wilkinson, swonded by Commissioner Alne the public hearing was unanimously dosed. Chairperson Fox discovered, upon investigate ol~ the site plan, tt~at the percentage o~ landscaping indicated in the staff report is not accurate, since a portion of the area noted as Hanning Commission minutes of ~ 8, 1992 10 landscaping is a gravel driveway. He pointed out that the ordinance suggests that a hardship must be present in order for approval ol~ a variance, and opposed approval ol~ the proposal. Further, he asked the Commission to add a condition to the application requiring the applicant to remove the driveway and the parking pad and provide landscaping instead. Commissioner Alne argued that denying the project would serve no public good, since the applicant could, without Commission approval, attach a garage and have the same project. He stated that the detached garage in question cannot be viewed from the street. Chairperson Fox stated that if the ordinance stipulates attached garages in the t~ront of the property, then the applicant should attach it, that there is nothing unusual about the lot to prevent this from being done, and, that he sees no justification for hardship. City Attorney Seligmann, reviewed the variance requirements and the findings proposed by staff. Commissioner Alne discussed the hardship imposed by the characteristics of the land. Mr. Seligmann explained that if the Commission determined that a hardship is imposed by the character o~ ttqe land, it has grounds to support a variance. Discussion ensued between the Commission and staff relating to alternatives to a variance. Commissioner Alne summarized that if the garage were placed on the t~ront ot~ the lot, cars would block the driveway, the lot is deeper than others in the area, and that denying the application would serve no public good. He suggested that the intent of the ordinance is well represented by staff. MO'~O~: On motion of Commissioner Wilkinson, sevonded by Commissioner Perrine, Resolution No. 2834 was adopted approving V 92-08, and Resolution No. 2835 was adopted approving S 92-09, with the reconmended finda'ngs The motion carried by the:following roll ~all vot~ AYE& NOE~, ABSENI:.. ABSTAIN Coramissioner~' Commissionem' Commissioner. Commissioner. Perrine, Meyer-Kennedy, Wilkinson, Alne Fox Himins The Planning Commission meeting recessed at 9:20 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p,m., with all members present, except Commissioner Higgins. Chairperson Fox read the application into the record. Planning Commission mirages of ~ 8, 1992 11 Item No. 6. V 92-04: Public Hearing to consider the application of Ms. Barbara Harris, on behalf of Mr. Amir Salahieh, for approval of a variance to a garage setback from 25 feet to 15 feet for property located at 935 Lovell Avenue, in an R-1-6 (single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner t, presented the staff report noting the following: * The applicant's request for a variance for a garage setback. * The variance request is supported by staff because the current setback of 15 feet would not impair sight visibility and pedestrian safety. Further, she noted that the monolithic sidewalk design increases the driveway length, preventing blocking by parked cars. * Staff is recommending approval of the variance. Commissioner Perrine asked about driveway and the right-of-way, and Ms. Sciara responded t~at the property is located in a cul-de-sac. The sidewalk has a monolithic design with a 5 foot right-of-way adjacent to the back walk. Commissioner Alne presented the Site and Architectural report for the meeting of November 25, 1992, noting the Committee is recommending approval since a hardship is created by the location of the garage doors and the size and design of the sidewalk. The cul-de-sac has existing parking problems and the application corrects these problems. Chairperson Fox opened the Public Hearing. Public Comment: Ms. Barbara Harris, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission outlining safety hazards to children who play in the cuI~le-sac. There were no other speakers. On motion of Commissioner Wilkinson, sevonded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Public Hearing was unanimously dosed. MOTIO~ On motion of Comndssioner Alne, sevonded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, Resolution No. 2837, was adopted with the recommended ffmdings The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Perrine, Meyer-K~, W'dkinson, Aine and Fox None Higgim Planning ~on minutes of ~ 8. 199~ I~ MISCELLANEOUS Chairperson Fox read the application into the record. Item No. 7. SA 92-44: Consider the application o~ Mr. Craig Maynard, on behalf of Campbell Gateway Square, Ltd., for approval of a signing program for properties known as 10-70 East Hamilton Avenue and t 660 South Winchester Boulevard in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report, noting: * The applicant's request for a sign program to identify Campbell Gateway Square shopping Center. Location of the project and background of the applications associated with the proposed signage. * Staff is recommending deletion of one of the Walgreens signs along the north side of the entry tower. * Staff is supporting additional signs on the interior of the center, because the retail center is a multi-tenant center. Staff, however, would like the applicant to delete the "Torn Ticket Logo" sign l~or the video store. Approval of the program with the deletion of the two above mentioned signs would be consistent with other developments in the area. Commissioner Alne presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting report of November 25, 1992, noting: * The Committee considered the corner location and the interior of the shopping center. * The Committee recommends approval with the deletions outlined by staff. Mr. Deke Hunter, Campbell Gateway Square~ Ltd., Partner, addressed issues, as follows: The project will be a gateway into the City of Campbell and will provide an excess amount of landscaping and a design as requested by the City which created a massive wall ~or the major tenant, Walgreens. Potential customers will be sitting on the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Winchester Boulevard and the building needs identification in order to prevent traffic congestion created by patrons who would be unable to identify the entrances. This sign is important to the retail center. * He offered a solution of compromise to limit the signs on the front of the building to three. Eliminating the northern sign would not be acceptable to Walgreens. * A major tenant moving into Campbell from another city, Block Buster Video would abandon one of the torn ticket logos, in order to retain the one on the corner of the center~ Commissioner Perrine supported Mr. Hunters suggestion. MOTION:. On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commit'on minutes of ~ 8, 1992 13 application was unanimously approved as suggested by Mr. Hunter, diminating one of the Walgreens signs (on the liquor store), drop ~o of the torn ticket logos on Block Buster Fu~o, retaining the one on the corner, 5-0-I, Commissioner Hi. ins being absent. Chairperson Fox read the application into the record. Item No. 8. M 92-~): Consider the application of Mr. Dave Cardoza for a modification to a previously approved industrial building to allow an auto repair use, on property located at 1011 Dell Avenue, in a M-1S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. I~im J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report noting: * I~he applicant's request is to modify an existing industrial building constructed for office/warehouse use to allow an auto related business. * The applicant is indicating the provision of five interior parking spaces reducing usable building square footage. Additionally, the applicant is requesting that 62 percent of the parking spaces be compact because the business will specialize in smaller cars. * Staff is recommending approval if the applicant upgrades the existing landscaping, provides landscaping on the northern portion of the site with four tree wells, and an irrigation system to erve the new landscaped areas. * The Public Works Department is requiring the applicant to participate in a deferred street improvement agreement, and asking the property owner to enter into an agreement to provide sidewalks along the Dell Avenue portion of the property in the future. Commissioner Alne presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report of November 25, 1992, noting that the Committee was concerned about the trees along the eastern boundary and suggested that a vine would eliminate the potential of trees damage by cars. The Committee asked the Chair to comment, since the Chair is a Professional Landscape Architect. Chairperson Fox suggested that if tree wells were in place, and root guards were installed, there would be little chance of damage to trees at the location. Director of Planning, Mr. Steve Piasecki, stated that it is the intention of Planning Department to upgrade landscaping in all areas of the City, including industrial areas. Commissioner Wilkinson suggested that staff be allowed to select the appropriate tree type. Harming Commission minutes of 1)~mber 8, 1992 14 Chairperson Fox asked the applicant if he would like to address the Commission and he declined. On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by Commissioner Meyer. K~, the proposed modi. f'u~tion was unanimously approved with ~onditions recommended by staff, 5-0-I, Commissioner Higgins being absent. Chairperson Fox read the application into the record. Item No. 9. SA 92-51: Consider the application of Ms~ Virginia Fanelli, on behalf of Jack- in-the-Box, for approval of a second wall sign and a new Pee standing sign on property located at 1450 West Campbell, in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Staff suggested that Items 9 and 10 be heard at the same time, since the requests are identical and the applicant is the same. The difference being the locations of the sites. There being no objections from the Commission, Chairperson Fox read application I0 into the record and directed staff to present both reports for one action by the Commission. Item No. 10 SA 92-52: Consider the application of Ms. Virginia Fanelli, on behal~ o~ Jack- in-the-Box, for approval ol~ a second wall sign and a new free standing sign on property located at 1737 South Bascom Avenue, in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Ms. Gloria M. Sciara, Planner I, presented the staff reports, as follows~ Provided a background of the previous site approval where the Commission required the applicant to return to the Commission with the signing proposal. * Staff recommends approval since the proposed signs compi~' with the sign ordinance. Commissioner Alne presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report of November 25, 1992, noting that the Committee recommended approval. The applicant was not present_ On motion of Commissioner ~ Kennedy, savnded by Commissioner Wilkinson, the applications were unanimously approved, 5-0-1, Commissioner Higgins being absent. Harming Grmmi.~on minutes of l)erember 8, 1992 15 Chairperson Fox read the next item into the record. Item No. t 2. Selection of commissioners to serve on the San Tomas Study Task Force. The Chair appointed Commissioners IVeyer-Kennedy and Wilkinson to serve on the San Tomas Study Task Force. Commissioner MeyerIKennedy accepted the appointment, and Commission Wilkinson expressed opposition to the appointment, citing his work schedule and prior commitments. Chairperson Fox indicated a desire to discuss the matter afl:er the meeting. Chairperson Fox read the ~ollowing item. Item No. 13~ Nomination and election of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission l%r the Year of 1993. The Chairperson accepted nominations for Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission for the t 993 calendar year~ Commissioner Perrine nominated Mark Wilkinson for Vice Chair, there were no other nominees. The Chair closed nominations for Vice Chair and reluctantly accepted nominations o~ Chairperson of the Planning Commission for the 1993 Calendar Year. Commissioner Wilkinson nominated Bud Alne for Chairperson, there were no other nominees, therefore the Chair closed nominations for Chairperson. On motion of Commissioner Aln6 seconded by Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, Mark Wilkinson was unanimoudy dected to serve as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Commission for the 1993 calendar year, 5-0-1, Commissioner Higgins being absent.. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Wilkinson, seconded by Commissioner Perdn6 Bud Alne was unanimously dected to serve as Chairperson of the Planning Commission for the 1993 calendar year, 5-0-1, Commissioner Higgins being absent. Hanning Commission minutes of l)m~mher 8, 1992 16 REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR The written report of the Planning Director was accepted. Mr. Piasecki reported on City Council action relative to the freeway oriented sign proposed for Fry's Electronics, noting that it was continued to the meeting o~ January 5, t 992; the downtown master plan; the proposed medical office off West Parr located in Los Gatos; and, the Christmas Tree and pumpkin lot proposal. Mr. Piasecki informed the Commission that the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting was rescheduled for December 31, 1992. ADJOURNMENT: The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:15 scheduled Planning Commission meeting of January 12, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California p.m., to the next regularly 1993, in the Council Chambers, Han~ing Commission minutes of Dm~ber 8, 1992 17