Loading...
PC Min 10/22/1991PLANNING COMMISSION City of Campbell, California 7:30 P.M. October 22, 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 CATI. Commissioners Present: Chairperson Jane Meyer-Kennedy Commissioner Robert Dougherty Commissioner Jay Perrine Commissioner I. (Bud) Alne Commissioner Mark Wilkinson Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Alana Higgins Commissioner David Fox Staff Present: Director of Planning, Steve Piasecki Planner I, Gloria Sciara City Attorney, Bill Seligmann City Engineer, Joan Bollier Reporting Secretary, Karon Shaban APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by Commissioner Alne, the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 1991, were unanimously approved, as submitted, (4-0-1-2), Commissioners Fox and Higgins being absent, and Dougherty abstaining, due to his absence. COMMUNICATIONS: Director of Planning, Steve Piasecki informed the Commission that communications received were included in the Commission packets. He noted that the following items were received after the packets were sent out: Two letters opposing Item No. 1, UP 91-20, large day care home. Sign plan for Item No. 4, SA 91-40, Six Star Outlet. 2 October 22, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes ORAL REOtr~TS: Mr. Robert Nicholas, Harrison Avenue Resident, addressed the Commission requesting that consideration be given to placement of underground utilities along Harrison Avenue. City Engineer, Joan Bollier, informed Mr. Nicholas that she would review funding and future plans for North Harrison Avenue, and suggested that he contact the Public Works Department for this information. Mr. Nicholas noted that he did contact the Public Works Department and was told that the North Harrison Avenue area is not a priority for underground utilities. Further, Mr. Nicholas pointed out that comments contained in the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 1991, page 7, last paragraph regarding the Home Depot project should have reflected his intended statement, that the City should consider having Home Deport provide no more than one loading dock. Additionally, Mr. Nicholas noted that the header on page 7 has the wrong date. The City Attorney suggested that these minutes be attached to the minutes of June 25, 1991, to clarify his intent. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Item No. 3, SA 91-37 was heard at this time. 3. SA 91-37 Iric, M. Consider the application of Ms. M/Ici Iric, on behalf of Heritage Village, to allow two permanent office leasing signs, on property located at 51 East Campbell Avenue, in a PD {Planned Development) Zoning District. Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy read the application into the record. She noted that the applicant is requesting that this item be removed from calendar. On the motion of Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by Cornmtssioner Perrine, it was unanimously ordered that Item No. 3, SA 91-37, be removed from calendar. Plannin~ Commission Minutes 3 October 22, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. UP 91-20 Avalos. M. Public Hearing to consider the application of Ms. Mary Gomez Avalos, for a Use Permit to allow a large day care facility for 12 children, on property located at 650 Aram Avenue, in an R-1-6 ( Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy read the application into the record. Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner I, presented the staff report noting the following: · The applicant's request. · Letters of opposition. · The site has been reviewed by the Planning Staff and the Social Services Department. · She outlined the criteria for review of a large day care facility and the applicant meets all the requirements. * She noted that the fence height could be raised from 6 to 8 feet for sound attenuation. · The hours of operation will be from 6:00 a.m., until 6:00 p.m. · That there are no large day care facilities within the 300 square foot radius outlined by State law. · There is adequate indoor and outdoor space available for the children to play. · The staff recommends approval, subsequent to Commission's review of the noise concerns expressed by neighbors. Commissioner Alne presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting discussion of October 9, 1991, as follows: · There was no technical reason why the proposal for a large day care facility should not be approved. · The Committee recommends approval, subject to input from the residents in the area. Commissioner Perrine asked that the City Attorney to explain how State Law allows the Commission to evaluate this type of use permit request. Mr. William Seligmann, City Attorney explained that the State has set forth a policy encouraging child care facilities to be located within a home environment, and that 7 to 12 children would be allowed in a residentially zoned area. Further, he said that relative to noise, the State is supportive of noise levels normally generated by children. Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy opened the public hearing. October 22, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes Public Comment: Mrs. Elizabeth Bakarlch, 1517 Pyramid Court, San Jose, property owner adjacent to the subject proposal, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal, citing the following: · Noise levels are unacceptable. · A day care facility is a business and does not belong in a residential district. Mr. Ronald Wakefield, P.O. Box 110876, Campbell, 95011, property owner adjacent to the subject proposal, addressed the Commission in opposition to the proposal, citing the following: · Approval of this facility will cause his renters to move. · That renters have requested that their rents be lowered, if a child care facility is approved at the subject location. · Pointed out that the Staff Report contains fmdings that state that this proposal shall not degrade the integrity of the neighborhood and Mr. Wakefield stated that approval of this proposal would disrupt the integrity of the neighborhood. · He suggested that the subject use would devalue his property and suggested that if approval of the proposal caused him to lose money, he would sue the Planning Commission, the applicant, and the City for allowing this type of use. Mr. Seligmann informed the Commission that since there was threat of litigation, it would be appropriate for the Commission to adjourn to a closed session to discuss this item. The Commission declined to hold a closed session, at this time. Mr. Larry West, 636 Stokes Street, San Jose, 95128, addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposal noting the following: · The proposal would increase traffic in the area. · Property would be devalued by at least 5% if a large day care facility was approved. · Inferred that currently the home is caring for more than six children. Mr. William R. Fulk, 647 Stokes Street, San Jose, 95128, addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposal noting that: · Noise generated from the site currently is excessive. · A sound wall would not buffer the sound enough for day sleepers. He stated that he contacted a masonry contractor and was told that a double hollow block concrete sound wall would be required to buffer sound of this type. · He circulated a petition containing 26 names of local residents opposed to the proposed day care. · He read a letter of opposition from his wife, Cynthia Fulk, Planning Commission Minutes 5 October 22, 1991 voicing opposition to the proposal, noting that she has seen 8 children outside the home, the current home was purchased due to the tranquility of the neighborhood and she cannot read in her back yard any more because the noise is now intolerable. Informed the Commission of another day care facility at the comer of Stokes and Spruance. Commissioner Perrine asked if the Commission decided to look favorably at the proposal, would there be any conditions that Mr. Fulk would like to see implemented. Mr. Fulk stated that he would not like to see a large day care facility at this location under any condition. Ms. Gerry Goodman, 1003 and 1005 Whitehall Avenue, property owner, expressed concern that: * Renters would move due to the noise and increased traffic. · Driveways would be used as tum-arounds. · The proposal would decrease in property values. Commissioner Perrine asked if the Commission decided to look favorably at the proposal, would there be any conditions Ms. Goodman would like to see put into place. Ms. Goodman stated that limiting the amount of children would be helpful, however, she would prefer that the project not be approved. Mr. Juan Avalos, the applicant's husband, spoke in support of the proposal, noting that: · Most of the children are infants, and make very little noise. · Adequate turn-around space is provided on-site. · Property values would increase if people living in the area would clean up their yards. Mr. Kyong Ko spoke for his father the property owner at 657 Stokes Street, noting that since his father is a day sleeper, the children would disrupt his sleep time. Mrs. Elizabeth Bakarich spoke again about the potential drop in property values, due to this day care facility. Mr. Wakefield and Mr. West spoke again requesting denial of the proposal. Commissioner Dougherty asked the applicant if the day care license specified an age group. Planning Commission Minutes 6 October 22, 1991 Mrs. Mary Avalos, the applicant, stated that the license states that children between the ages of newborn and 17 years of age. She indicated that she would prefer to care for children two-years old and up. Commissioner Perrine requested information regarding the exact location on the site where the children would be cared for. Mrs. Avalos and the Planning Department staff indicated locations of interest to the Commission. Specifically discussed as the location of the 600 square foot basement or split-level portion as the indoor play area of the home, the external entrances to the lower portion of the home, and fencing currently present in the outdoor play area. Commissioner Perrine asked if Mrs. Avalos minded having outdoor activity being limited to six children at a time, and in response, Mrs. Avalos stated that she would accept that condition. Discussion ensued relative to whether the indoor play area was a basement or a split-level design. Photographs of the home were circulated. Mr. Anthony Bakarich, property owner at 993 and 995 Whitehall Avenue, noted his objections to the day care center. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Alne, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty, it was unanimously ordered that the Public Hearing be closed. Pursuant to Government Code Section 5400.956.9 (c), the meeting was adjourned to a closed session at 8:20 p.m., to discuss possible litigation regarding UP 91-20, and reconvened at 8:30 p.m. All Commissioners were present, except Commissioners Fox and Higgins. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Alne indicated support for the proposal noting that although the Commission could consider the noise as a reason for denial if the noise generated was above the sound level normally generated by 12 average children. Further, that the State law protects day care centers against litigation due to traffic increases, and, that a violation of the noise level as outlined by State law has not been provided. Commissioner Dougherty concurred with Commissioner Alne's statements noting his support and expressed concern regarding fire safety of the premises. Planning Commission Minutes 7 October 22, 1991 Further, Commissioner Dougherty noted his concem that our society is unsupportive of its children and does not believe that property is devalued by the presence of a day care center. Addressing the concern regarding fire safety, Ms. Sciara stated that an on-site inspection was done of the home and it was found to be appropriately maintained. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if Mrs. Avalos had children of her own. and if so are they considered part of the twelve allowed under the Use Permit. Mrs. Avalos indicated that she does have children and that they are considered as part of the twelve allowable, however, that occasionally her mother provides care for her own children. Commissioner Perrine noted that he would be supportive of the day care home at this location. He said that parking, traffic circulation, and the size of the play areas were appropriate at the site to handle 12 children, however, he requested that the application be conditioned to allow only 6 children at a time outside, and that a review of the facility be conducted after six months. These suggested conditions were acceptable to the applicant. Commissioner Wilkinson indicated that he would not be supporting the request for twelve children due to the impact it may cause to adjoining residents' quiet enjoyment of their homes. Commissioners Alne and Dougherty made the following arguments in support of the request: · Current society has a great need for day care facilities. · Future population trends indicate future need for day care. · Over-population and increased density cannot be addressed by denial of day care for children. · The request will address future needs of the community. MOTION: On the motion of Commissioner ~.lne, seconded by Commissioner Perrlne, it was ordered that Resolution No. 2774 be adopted, approving a large day care facility for 12 children at 650 Aram Avenue, incorporating the attached findings, adding one finding, as follows: While evidence of the noise from the current small day care home was present, the evidence does not substantiate that the noise would unreasonably offend the senses or obstruct the free Plannin~ Commission Minutes 8 October 22, 1991 use of neighboring properties, so as to l,nreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of adjoining properties, taking into consideration the noise norm~lly created by children in that: a) The conditions limit the number of children that play outdoors to 6; and b) That the home substantial indoor and outdoor space to help b~,~'er the noise from the neighboring properties. Further that the approval be subject to Conditions of Approval, amended to include limiting the n~mher of children allowed to play outside at any one time to 6, and the addition of a review of the facilities and the fence for sound attenuation after six months of operation. Commissioner Alne indicated that it is not his intent to burden the applicant with the provision of a double concrete fence after six months of operation. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Alne, Perrine, Dougherty, Meyer- Kennedy Wilkinson Higgins, l~ox. MISCELLANEOUS e SA 91-38 Consider the application of Hunter Properties to Hunter allow a modification to the previously approved sign Properties program, allowing additional tenant signs on two previously approved free-standing signs, located at 1064 Hamilton Avenue, and 1658 South Bascom Avenue, in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy read the application into the record. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Planning, presented the staff report noting the following: * That this is a modification to the approved request. * Staff recommends approval of the request. Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 22, 1991 Mr. Piaseckl distributed copies of the new sign detail. Commissioner Alne presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting discussion of October 9, 1991, as follows: · The Committee found the application to be acceptable subject to revisions incorporating the architectural detail of the signs into the building design. · The applicant has provided these revisions. · The Committee recommends approval. Commissioner Perrine noted that the Commission has previously approved the application requesting that details be returned to the full Commission. MOTION: On the motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by Commissioner Dougherty it was u~-ntmously ordered that the modification to the sign program be approved. SA 91-40 Six Star Outlet Consider the application of Six Star Factory Outlet, to allow a modification to the previously approved sign program for additional square footage on an approved wall sign, located at 2365 South Winchester Boulevard, in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Chairperson Meyer-Kennedy read the application into the record. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Planning, presented the staff report noting the following: · Applicant's request. · The staff recommends approval. Commissioner Alne presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting discussion of October 9, 1991, noting that the Committee recommends approval. MOTION: On the motion of Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by Commissioner Wilkinson, it was unanimously ordered that the modtt~cation to the previously approved sign program be approved, subject to Conditions of Approval. 10 October 22, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes 5. Staff Report Sign Ordinance. Ms. Gloria Sciara, Planner I, presented the st_~_ff report noting the following: * Background of the current sign ordinance. * Code enforcement process. * Response to Commissioner Alne's query relative to the high degree of non-compliance with the sign ordinance. She stated that the Planning Department is understaffed and that priorities relating to health and safety issues area addressed first. Informed the Commission that the sign ordinance would be reviewed in the future. Informed the Commission that the Police Department would be taking over the code enforcement of the sign ordinance. Recent code enforcement sweep of the City for non-compliance to the sign ordinance. Commissioner Alne commended the staff for the report and stated that he would be happy to see the Police Department take over the code enforcement responsibilities. The Commission accepted the report. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Planning Director Piasecki, provided a brief oral report relating to City Council declaring the week of October 20 - 28, 1991, as Planning Week in the City of Campbell; the Planning Department's receipt of a certificate of appreciation from the Great Gatsby Committee for its volunteer efforts; the Vasona Corridor Regional Plan; and, Transportation Plan 2010. Director Piasecki, further informed the Commission that no applications have been received for the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 1991. He stated that the Planning staff would notify the Commission if the meeting is canceled. The report of the Planning Director was accepted. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m., to a special scheduled Planning Commission meeting of October 24, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, to consider the McGlincey Lane Expansion Area EIR and application PD Planning Commission Minutes 11 October 22, 1991 91-04, subsequently adjourning to the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of November 12, 1991, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, Cmltfornia, unless otherwise noticed. APPROVED: Jane P. Me_ver-Kennedy CHAIRPERSON ATrEST: Steve Piasecki SECRETARY Respectfully Submitted by: Kar0n Shaban Reporting Secretary