PC Min 06/26/19917:30 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Campbell, California
June 25,1991
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
MINUTES
The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session, at 7:30
p.m., in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California, and the
following proceedings were had to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Chairperson Jane Meyer-Kennedy
Commissioner Robert Dougherty
Commissioner Jay Perrine
Commissioner I. (Bud) Alne
Commissioner Alana Higgins
Commissioner David Fox (arrives at 7:38 p.m.)
Commissioner Mark Wilkinson
Commissioners Absent:
None.
Staff Present:
Director of Planning, Steve Piasecki
Senior Planner, Randy Tsuda
Planner I, Curtis Banks
City Attorney, Bill Seligmann
Engineering Manager, Bill Helms
Traffic Engineer, Gary Kruger
Reporting Secretary, Karon Shaban
Assistant Reporting Secretary, Lisa Burrus
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
On motion of Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by Commissioner
Wilkinson, the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 11,
1991, were unanimously approved, as submitted, (5-0-1-1),
Commissioner Fox being absent, Commission Higgins abstaining due to her
absence at the last meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS:
Director of Planning, Steve Piasecki informed the Commission that communications
received were included in the Commission packets and pertain to items on the agenda.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 25, 1991
Items received
1.
3.
4.
5.
after the Planning Commission packets were distributed are as follows:
Letter from William Weiner, requesting removal from the Commission
calendar.
Memo from the City Manager relating to the Commission Update.
Revised findings and Conditions of Approval for Item No. 8, R 91-05.
Revised findings for Item No. 7, SA 91-22.
Letter from Kurt Anderson requesting withdrawal of a portion of his
application, Item No. 3.
Added Condition for Item No. 5, GP 91-02/ZC 91-01/PD 91-01.
Commissioner Fox arrived at 7:38 p.m.
AGENDA MODIFI(~ATION~; OR POSTPONEMENTS
Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy moved Item Nos. 1, 3, and 4 forward, since the applicant's have
requested a continuance or removal from the Commission Agenda.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. M 91-06
(PD 73-04)
Weiner, W.
Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of
Mr. William Weiner, for approval of a modification to a
previously approved Planned Development Permit, allowing the remodel
of an existing 3500 square foot warehouse/office building, on property
located at 20/28 Railway Avenue, in a PD (Planned Development)
Zoning District.
Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy read the application into the record, noting the applicant's
desire to have the item removed from calendar.
MOTION:
On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by
Commissioner Alne, it was unanimously ordered that M
91-06be removed from the Calendar.
ZC 90-08/
PD 90-02/
TS 91-01
Anderson, K.
Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of
Mr. Kurt Anderson for approval of a Zone Change from
R-1-10 (Single-Family Residential) to PD (Planned
Development), approval of a Planned Development Permit, and
a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow construction of 5 single-
family homes, on properties located at 1265-1271 Burrows Road
in an R-1-10 (Single-Family Residential/Low-Density Residential)
Zoning District.
Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy read the application into the record.
Director of Planning, Steve Piasecki, noted the applicant's letter requesting that ZC 90-08/PD 90-
02 and TS 91-01 be withdrawn from the calendar, and, that the Site and Architectural
component of the zoning application be continued to July 9, 1991.
MOTION:
On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by
Commissioner Fox, it was unanimously ordered that ZC
90-O8/PD 90-02 and TS 91-01 be withdrawn from
calendar, and that the Site and Architectural component
of the zoning application be continued to July 9, 1991.
GP 90-04/
ZC 90-13/
PD 90-08
Bowen, B.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Bruce
Bowen, on behalf of Ainsley Development, Inc., for
approval of a General Plan Amendment from
Public/Semi-Public to Commercial; approval of a Zone
Change from PF (Public Facilities) to PD (Planned
Development); and, approval of a Planned Development Permit
to allow a 15,000 square foot retail center and a 4000 square
foot fast-food drive-through restaurant, on property located at
the southwest corner of Hacienda Avenue and Winchester
Boulevard (3101 South Winchester Boulevard).
Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy read the application into the record, noting the applicant's request to
have the the item continued to July 9, 1991 ..
The Chairperson declared the Public Hearing on GP 90-04/ZC 90-13/PD 90-08.
MOTION:
On motion of Commissioner Wilkinson, seconded by
Commissioner Higgins, it was unanimously ordered that
the Public Hearing be continued to July 9, 1991.
Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy continued with the posted agenda, as follows:
ORAL REQUESTS:
There were no Oral Requests.
pUBLIC HEARINGS
GP 91-03/
TA 91-03
City-Initiated
Continued Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated
application to consider a General Plan Amendment to the
Land Use Element of the General Plan; and, a Text Amendment
to Section 21.06.010 of the Municipal Code, establishing a Density
Transfer Policy.
Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy read the application into the record.
Planning Commission,
Director of Planning, Steve Piasecki,
presented the staff report noting the following:
The City initiated the application in order to provide more flexibility to developers
for variation in density by providing larger park fees.
After studying the density bonus, staff has found that at a bonus of ten percent,
it would take the City too long to obtain its benefits.
Staff is recommending denial of the Density Bonus Ordinance.
The Chairperson declared the Public Hearing open.
Public Comment:
Mr. Phillip Driver, 1359 Juanita Way, spoke in support of Staff's recommendation.
Hal Hendrix, 1345 Hack Avenue, spoke in support of Staff's recommendation.
MOTION:
On motion of Commissioner Fox, seconded by
Commissioner Dougherty, it was unanimously ordered
that the Public Hearing for GP 91-02/TA 91-03 be
closed.
MOTION:
On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by
Commissioner Dougherty, it was unanimously ordered
that Resolution No. 2757 be adopted, recommending
denial of the Density Bonus Ordinance, by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Alne, Higgins, Perrine, Wilkinson,
Dougherty, Fox, Meyer-Kennedy
None
None.
GP 91-02/
ZC 91-01/
PD 91-01
Home Depot
Public Hearing to consider the application of Home
Depot, USA, Inc., for approval of a General Plan
Amendment to change the Land Use Designation from
Public/Semi-Public to Commercial; a Zone Change to rezone the
site from PF (Public Facilities) to PD (Planned Development);
and, approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow
construction of a 100,000 square foot retail building with a 20,000
square foot outdoor garden center, on property located at 480
East Hamilton Avenue (former Hamilton School site), 509 and
557 Salmar Avenue, in PF (Public/Semi-Public Facilities) and PD
(Planned Development) Zoning Districts.
Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy read the application into the record.
Mr. Randy Tsuda, Senior Planner, outlined how the staff report would be presented.
Planning Commission
Mr. Curtis Banks, Planner I, presented the staff report noting the following:
· Site size and design, as displayed on the bulletin boards.
· Current use and proposed structure.
· Fencing, proposed soundwall, access, and parking.
· Landscaping.
· That the applicant has met with the Harrison Avenue neighbors.
Mr. Randy Tsuda, Senior Planner, addressed the environmental concerns of staff, as follows:
· Traffic, mitigated by the Conditions of Approval, by requiring a traffic signal
placed at Almarida and Central Avenues. The City's Traffic Engineer has
designed a narrower street concept to slow down traffic and limit cut-through
traffic within the City. Further, he stated that the design would actually reduce
the level of service from level E to level D.
· Noise from the parking lot on the west side of the building, from lumber delivery
on the southwest corner of the building, and the mechanical equipment located on
the top of the building, could be mitigated by adding conditions. He mentioned the
following:
· Raising the soundwall height to twelve feet
· Adjusting the building footprint and/or shifting the building to provide for
relocation of the employee parking area to the southerly property line
· Having the lumber door slide to an easterly direction.
· Requiring a gated area to prevent loitering behind the building in the non-
operational hours.
· Circulation on-site could be addressed by cross access through the parking lot.
· Dust and noise created during construction, could be mitigated by the Conditions
of Approval, by limiting hours for construction, and,
· Retention of 12 trees, and removal of the remaining 7 trees which would be
replaced by 36 inch box trees and addressed in the Conditions of Approval. He
cautioned that even though residents along the westerly property line requested
that the existing pine trees be removed, due to disease and the dropping of pine
needles. Staff feels that the removal would increase visibility into the back
yards and is recommending replacement by 24 inch box trees.
· Discussed architectural changes to extend the exterior textured band treatment
and to extend the buttress into the garden center.
· Staff is recommending approval.
Discussion ensued between Staff and the Commissioners relating to employee parking, the lumber
door, lumber truck delivery access, and traffic impacts for the area.
Gary Kruger, Traffic Engineer, addressed the Commission and explained how the recommended
traffic design and circulation would work. He outlined the synchronization of traffic signals
(interconnect system) to keep traffic flowing, during peak hours. Further, he estimated backup of
traffic and traffic flow in the area due to establishment of the Home Depot Retail Center.
Plannin$ Commission ., 6 .../' ~ _, _..-
When asked about how accurate his predictions were, Mr. Kruger stated that he could predict
within one half of a second for delay or one car length, and that he used the worst case scenario.
Discussion ensued between Commissioners and the City Traffic Engineer relating to pedestrian
crossing and movement of employee parking.
Commissioner Fox outlined discussion of the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting
of June 12, 1991, as follows:
· Relocation of the proposed parking along the westerly side of the building to the
south side.
· Provision of a soundwall to buffer potential noise from loading and unloading of
trucks, and recommended an increase in the height of the wall.
· Adjustment in the footprint of the proposed building as a mitigation measure to
provide a wider building frontage and shorter depth.
· On-site circulation to provide longer parking aisles on Hamilton Avenue.
· Retention and replacement of existing trees on-site.
· Extension of the arcade/buttress and trim treatment along the garden center
area.
· Review of the entrance to the building to create a more detailed entry element.
· The Committee will recommend approval if these concerns are addressed.
Commissioner Alne added that noise impacts relative to unloading and loading of delivery truck s
on the site was also discussed and the solution discussed limiting hours for loading and unloading
of trucks. Further, that the Committee was not concerned about relocation of the loading doors.
Mr. Jim Lyon, Real Estate Manager for Home Depot, noting that a neighborhood meeting had
occurred as an attempt to discover concerns of the area residents, and he addressed the
Conditions of Approval, noting his concern with the following:
· Condition No. 2b, and d, relating to employee parking and that relocation of
employee parking is unacceptable, due to safety and potential security issues.
· Noted concern with relocation of the lumber door.
· Concern with Condition No. 2f, relating to on-site circulation, requesting that the
Commission meet the applicant half way and allow the cross-access to be
extended to the next row.
· Condition No. 9b, related to concerns regarding fencing and gate control devices,
and asked about staff's intention. In response, Mr. Tsuda stated that the
intention was to secure the area after operating hours.
· Condition No. 9c relating to non-employee access to the rear relocation of the
driveway, and Condition No. 9 d and e, relating to requiring an agreement
between Home Depot and A&M Homes, driveway location, requesting that staff
mediate between the two businesses to ensue this agreement.
· Condition No. 14 b and c, asking for clarification relating to standard street
improvements and asked for an increase in the driveway width. Mr. Bill Helms,
Engineering Manager, explained that standard street improvements include curbs,
gutters and sidewalks, and Mr. Lyon stated that there was no problem with
Plannin$ Commission..v 7 .~....~ , .
those provisions.
Condition No. 16, relating to signage indicating that Home Depot has a standard
sign program used in all stores, and requested information on whether or not the
proposed signs are in conformance with the Ciyrs requirements. Mr. Tsuda
indicated that staff had not calculated the proposed sign program since a sign
application would be addressed anyway at a later date.
Condition No. 28, asked if the limitation for hours of construction is standard
throughout the City, and Mr. Helms indicated that it is.
Condition No. 33, requested clarification regarding whether or not the condition
was for a roof element, and Mr. Tsuda indicated that it was not. Mr. Lyon
accepted the Condition.
Condition No. 45, requested that sweeping of the parking area be done prior to
business hours. Mr. Tsuda stated that there would be no problem with Home
Depot having their lot sweeped prior to business hours if the lot sweeper could
meet the noise levels.
The Commission suggested that the parking lot sweeping company could sweep after store hours
rather than prior to business hours.
Mr. Lyon indicated that Condition Nos. 2c, 9c and e directly relate to employee parking and
requested that they be eliminated.
Discussion ensued between Commissioners, staff and Mr. Lyons relating to the location of
employee parking.
Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy opened the public hearing.
Public Comment:
Mr. Richard Riley, 3000 Winchester Boulevard, suggested that allowing Home Depot to locate in
Campbell would hurt a lot of long time Campbell business owners and raised issues regarding
parking and traffic impacts.
Mr. Kent Kirkorian, Campbell business owner, echoed the remarks made by Mr. Riley relating to
providing the City of Campbell with over thirty years of support. Further, he suggested that
water conservation would not support landscaping that staff is requiring of Home Depot.
Further, that traffic increases would impact the air quality simply because of auto emissions and
raised a question regarding employee parking. He asked if employees were allowed to park on
City property who would be liable for accidents that occur in the parking area. He indicated that
staff's recommendation for approval was related to the collection of Tax Revenue.
Mr. Robert Nicholas, North Harrison resident, spoke in opposition of the proposal and raised
concerns relating to possible devaluation of residential properties, traffic increases on surrounding
streets, the lease agreement, degradation of the environment by increase in air pollution and
noise created from roof-top equipment. He suggested that if approval is granted the City should
consider having Home Depot provide more than one loading dock. Further, that the site could be
used for something that would enhance the environment such as a flower growing facility.
Plannin$ Commissiorl..
Ms. Uree Shanker, Almarida Drive, spoke in opposition of the proposal, noting that the site should
be utilized to provide the City with more open space, since during the open space hearings,
indicated that intention of the City was to purchase school sites to provide open space.
Mr. Dan Brodnik, 119 Los Arbor Drive, Los Gatos, Campbell business owner, noted that stacking
of traffic trying to access Highway 17 from Hamilton Avenue is currently a problem and
wondered how adding more traffic would reduce the current traffic problems.
Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy called recess at 9:25 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 9:35 p.m.,
with all Commissioners present.
MOTION:
On motion of Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by
Commissioner Alne, it was unanimously ordered that
the Public Hearing be closed.
(~gmmi$~i0n Discussion
Commissioner Higgins noted that she would not be supporting the proposal since she likes the
small community environment.
Commissioner Fox made suggestions regarding concerns expressed by Mr. Jim Lyon regarding the
Conditions of Approval. He suggested that employee parking concerns could be resolved, and felt
that the loading door was no longer an issue, however, the noise impacts to adjacent residents
has been mitigated relative to trucks loading and unloading.
Commissioner Alne concurred with Commissioner Fox's comments. Further, addressing the
comments of the public, he stated that the Planning Commission could not restrict trade within
the City, and that he would support the application if other concerns could be mitigated.
Commissioner Dougherty spoke in support of the proposal noting that competition has been good
for his business.
Relative to Condition No. 2f of the recommended Conditions, Commissioner Fox suggested that
with the removal of certain trees, the applicant would gain spaces for employee parking.
Relative to Condition No. 9 b, c and e, he suggested that he would support having staff address
these concerns with the applicant, and suggested that Condition Nos. 2 b, c and e be deleted,
leaving in Condition No. 2f.
Commissioner Wilkinson indicated that he would like more information relating to traffic impacts
and expressed concern relating to negative neighborhood response for the proposal.
Relative to Condition No. 9 b and c, relating to access along the western property line,
Commissioner Fox suggested moving the parking to the southside of the building.
Mr. Piasecki stated that staff's intention was not to limit employee parking, but rather to public
access after hours, along the westerly property line; that shifting of the building is not a
significant condition for approval.
Plannin~ Commission~,~. .~ ~-
Commissioner Perrine noted his mixed feelings on the proposed project are due to location of his
own residence on AImarida and indicated support for a continuance.
Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy noted her support for the proposal since it would be an improvement
to the current site.
Commissioner Dougherty indicated that he would like to see the parking problems return to the
Commission after the staff and applicant review solutions.
MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Fox, seconded by Commissioner
Dougherty, it was ordered that Resolution No. 2758, be
adopted, approving the proposed project, subject to the
Conditions of Approval, amended as follows:
Condition No. 2e be eliminated and that Condition Nos. 2c, d,
and f return to the Site and Architectural Review Committee,
Condition No. 9 c be deleted, retain Condition No. 9d,
Condition No. 45 relating to treet sweeping be amended to
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., upon satisfaction of City noise level
requirements; and, that Condition No. 35, submitted prior to
the public hearing, be added to. the approved Conditions of
Approval, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Alne, Perrine, Dougherty,
Kennedy
NOES: Commissioners: Higgins, Wilkinson
ABSENT: Commissioners: None.
Fox, Meyer-
6. M 91-07
Sharafi, A.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Asghar
Sharafi for approval of a modification to a previously approved
Use Permit to allow the remodel of an existing car wash on
property located at 125 San Tomas Aquino Road, in a C-2-S
(General Commercial) Zoning District.
Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy read the application into the record.
Mr. Curtis Banks, Planner I, presented the staff report, noting the following: · Applicant's proposal.
· Revised plans providing additional parking spaces.
· Provision of a trellis element for patrons waiting for service.
· Revised materials to be used on the exterior of the building.
· Staff is recommending approval.
Planning Commission
1991
10
Commissioner Fox presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report noting that all
concerns from the Committee had been addressed by the applicant, and that the Committee is
recommending approval.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked if some of the work had already been done at the location.
Mr. Kent Kirkorain, property owner, stated that the gas pumps and gas tanks were removed we
did that t o satisfy City requirements. Further, he noted that he was happy to conform to
recommendations made by staff relating to stucco exterior and satisfied that the roof element
will now match the rest of the center.
The Chairperson declared the public hearing open. No one wished to speak.
MOTION On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by
Commissioner Perrine, the public hearing was
unanimously.
closed
MOTION
On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by
Commissioner Higgins, it was unanimously ordered that
Resolution No. 2759 be adopted, approving M 91-07,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Alne, Higgins, Perrine, Wilkinson,
Dougherty, Fox, Meyer-Kennedy
None
None.
MISCELLANEOUS
7. SA 91-22
Kirkorian
Development
Consider the application of Kirkorian Development
for approval of a Sign Permit for Nob Hill Foods, located
at 1581 West Campbell Avenue, in a C-1-S (Neighborhood
Commercial) Zoning District.
The Chairperson read the application into the record.
The staff report was presented by Planner I, Curtis Banks. The following items were noted:
· The application is before the Commission since the square footage requested
exceeds ordinance requirements.
· Staff feels the overall sign program is excessive and suggests a decrease i n
square footage for the facade sign to 90 square feet.
Discussion ensued regarding allowable square footage relative to amount of letters in the
project's name, and discussed Safeway as compared to Nob Hill Foods.
Planning Commission 11
1991 f ~
Commissioner Fox reviewed the Site and Architectural Review Committee's view on the sign
program, noting that the Committee reviewed 4 perspective drawings for the sign, of 66, 90, 99
and 119 square feet to be located on the facade. He noted that the Committee indicated support
of the 99 square foot sign since it appeared to fit the facade better than any of the other
perspectives. Further, Commissioner Fox stated that the Committee suggested that the staff
and the applicant could resolve the issue.
Mr. Andy Soares, Sign Concepts, spoke in support of the 119 square foot facade sign, since this
sign has a greater number of letters than the Safeway logo sign previously approved. He noted,
further, that the letters were the same size as those approved for Safeway.
In response to questions raised by Commissioners relating to what staff uses to determine how
much square footage of sign a particular business should be allowed, Mr. Tsuda stated that
distance from the street, size and location of the building frontage, and architectural elements of
the fascia of the building.
Mr. Kent Kirkorian, property owner, discussed the importance of signs to attract new customers
and difficulties when a business relocates. Further, he noted that Payless Drug Store, and Thrift
located on adjoining corners of Campbell Avenue have larger signs and monument street signs
and that Nob Hill Foods is requesting less.
Mr. Frank Burelucci, Development for Kirkorian Development, spoke in support of the project,
stating that Nob Hill Foods has supported the Campbell community for numerous years and
requested that the Commission make an exception to the sign ordinance in this case.
Discussion ensued between Commissioners Alne and Fox relating to setting a precedent, factors
determining what size of lettering a sign should have, and variations in sign applications.
MOTION
ON MOTION OF COMMISSION DOUGHERTY, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER HIGGINS, IT WAS UNANIMOUSLY
ORDERED THAT SA 91-22 BE APPROVED, AS
SUBMITTED, 7-0-0.
R 91-05\
(TS 90-02\
PD 89-16)
Saray, S.
Consider the application of Mr. Steve Saray, on behalf of
Nadcon Development, for a reinstatement of a
previously approved Planned Development Permit to
allow construction of 9 townhomes, on property located at 65-85
East Latimer Avenue, in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning
District.
Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy read the application into the record.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Planning, presented the staff report noting the following:
Planning Commis?~l~,~,
12
Background relating to the applicant's application to file a final map approval at
Council level, where it was discovered that the Planned Development Permit had
expired, therefore, the items was continued to the City Council meeting of July 2,
1991.
The item was placed on the Planning Commission agenda in order to expedite
the applicant's request, and in order to meet the City Council date for
continuance of July 2, 1991, the report was written and sent out without
appropriate review.
After transmittal of the staff report, staff discovered that the parcels proposed
for development were part of the amended General Plan, File No. GP 90-01, and
the zoning and design policies for the area had been changed.
The request for a reinstatement provided the Planning Commission with an
opportunity to review the previously approved application and make necessary
changes in an attempt to ensure compliance with the current General Plan.
Inconsistencies were noted relating to the new policy requiring a mixture of one
and two-story units, and the requirement for detached garages.
Staff is recommending denial.
Commissioner Perrine asked if there were any other options available rather than denial of the
application. In response, Mr. Piasecki stated that redesign of the project would not be considered
as minor modifications, and that he felt that denial of the reinstatement was the only option. He
further stated that necessary modifications would require that a new application be filed.
Mr. Fred DeKIotz, Attorney representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the previously approved
application, citing that:
· The applicant has paid all fees relating to the previous application, and done so in
good faith.
· Due to unusual turn in the housing market, that applicant lost his construction
loan and was able to extend the temporary land loan.
· Requesting the applicant to file a new application would further delay the
process, causing loss of the temporary loan and foreclosure on the land.
· Discussed the current density requirements, and noted that the application is still
well within the current density requirement.
· Addressed the compatibility issues outlined in the findings for denial, indicating
compatibility with surrounding properties. Further, that the original approval was
based upon its compatibility, which has not changed; that the project was
unanimously approved without any public objection.
· Three units are detached units and the remaining six units are not.
· The current homes are an eyesore to the community, that the project would
result in an improvement in the area.
· Requested consideration on an individual basis since it was the City that changed
the zoning on the property after the project was approved, and to deny the
reinstatement would cause the applicant to loose his financing.
Planning Commissiox,
13
Mr. Steve Saray, on behalf of Nadcon Development, discussed:
· Compatibility; that adjacent to the proposed project there are apartments and
townhomes, and across the street is the postal office.
· The intention to develop the project was hindered by financial complications
created by the current housing market drop.
· Various meetings with the Planning Director resulted in the previous approved
project, and that the Planning Director now finds this project to be unacceptable.
· Additional fees imposed by Public Works has been paid, that requirements of the
Building department have been satisfied.
· Requested assistance of the Planning Commission by approving the
reinstatement in a timely manner to avoid loss of the new loan and loss of the
land loan.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked the applicant why he did not request an extension prior to
expiration of the development schedule. Mr. Saray responded that the Planning Department has
always notified applicants when their applications were in danger of expiration. Although, he has
recently been informed by the Planning staff that this was done as a courtesy and that the
courtesy is no longer offered by the Planning Department. Further, he indicated that his efforts
to find an alternate lending agency unexpectedly, and trying to obtain final map approval
occupied his thoughts.
Mr. Que Nazardad, Nadcon Development, discussed the following: · Unexpected, unfortunate financial circumstances.
· Eight year relationship with the City of Campbell and the Nadcon has never had
such problems in the past.
· The improvement to the existing substandard houses located there.
· The number of units were well thought out with the Planning Staff and we are
still under the desired density.
· The detached units are located on the Esther Avenue side, addressing the
compatibility issue.
· Surrounding uses on Latimer Avenue are apartments, and townhomes.
Commissioner Fox stated that he remembered that when the previously approved project was
before the Site and Architectural Review Committee. At that time, the density range was 14 to
20 units and the Committee had very little choice, but to approve the application. Further, he
stated that the project had the minimum desired setbacks and the sizes of the units were not
desirable. He indicated that he liked the three houses currently located at the project site.
Commissioners Alne and Dougherty concurred with Commissioner Fox in that allowing the
reinstatement would set a precedent for future development and that the time lapsed between
the request for extension of the proposal and the expiration date was too long.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked why the staff report indicates approval of the project and yet the
recommendation is for denial. Further, he asked if the developer is the property owner of record
ommission - ~.
when the zoning was changed, noting that the property owner should have been notified of the
change in zoning.
The Planning Director stated that staff did not have adequate time to review the item at the
time the staff report was prepared, that property owners were notified and that there is no
previous application, to his knowledge, that the Commission could use to review a changed use,
that all reinstatements have been reviewed relative to current rules.
Commissioner Higgins asked the applicant about the public hearing notice and in response, Mr.
Saray stated that at the time of the General Plan change, he was not the owner of record and
was not notified of the proposed zone change.
Commissioner Perrine indicated that he would be supportive of investigating a means for the
Council to reduce the fees if the applicant was to submit another application.
Discussion ensued between the applicant and the Commission relating to time spent with the
Planning Department to resolve concerns relating to the proposed design, and to the money
invested into the previously approved project. The applicant stated that he was under the
impression that there were no outstanding issues regarding the approved design, and that he is
anxious to begin construction of the project.
MOTION:
On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by
Commissioner Dougherty, it was unanimously
that the R 91-05 be denied, 7-0-0.
ordered
REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR
The report of the Planning Director was accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn at 112.0 p.m., to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of July 9,
1991, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Ki~r~)n Shaban
Reporting Secretary
APPROVED: Jane P. Meyer-Kennedy
Chairperson
ATTEST: Steve T, Piasecki
Secretary