Loading...
PC Min 03/27/1990PLANNING COMMISSION C-rTE OF CANPBI~I'.I.~ CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY MARCH 27, 1990 MINUTES The Planning Commission of the city of Campbell convened this day in regular session in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California, and the following proceedings were had to wit: ROLL C,~T,T. Commissioners Present: Chairperson Jay Perrine Commissioner Ronald Christ Commissioner David Fox Commissioner Jane Meyer Commissioner Mark Wilkinson Commissioner I. (Bud) Alne Commissioner Bruce Olszewski Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Director of Planning, Steve Piasecki City Engineer, Bill Helms Planner II, Tim J. Haley City Attorney, William Seligmann Karon Shaban, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: The following changes and/or additions were made to the minutes of the meeting of March 13,-1990: - page 5, line 1, change "1125 to 125." - page 6, 4th line from the bottom, change "Policy Department to Police Department." - page 7, discussion before motion to include a request from the Planning Commission, that the Planning Staff, the Chief of Police and the Applicant meet and discuss revised conditions to mitigate Commissioners concerns. M/S: Meyer, Fox Motion to 'approve the Planning Commission · L~nutes of the meeting of March 13, 1990, was unanimously approved, as amended, (6-0-1-0) Commissioner Christ abstaining due to his absence at the March 13, 1990, Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -2- March 27, 1990 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There being no objection, Chairperson Perrine requested that Item No. 2, V 90-04, of the Public Hearings be heard before Item No. 1, UP 90-02. COMMUNICATIONS: Planning Director Piasecki informed the Commission that communications were included in the Commission packets and pertain to items listed on the agenda; and, in addition, he noted: - Revised floor and seating plan for UP 90-02. - Confidential memo from the city Attorney - Referral from the City Council regarding Winchester Drive-In site. - Circulated at the meeting, this date, was a letter from Sandra J. Loethen and Peter Todaro, neighboring residents of 90 East Latimer, noting opposition of the proposed UP 90-04 ORAL REOUESTS PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. V 90-04 Smith, T. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Thomas Smith, for approval of a variance from 5 feet to 3 feet for a sideyard setback to allow the construction of an attached garage to an existing structure, on property known as 175 North Milton Avenue, in a R-l-6 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Chairperson Perrine read the Application into the record. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Planner II, reviewed the Application and discussed the Staff Report noting that Staff is recommending denial based upon the following concerns that: - the variance requirements would be difficult to prove since the need for the variance was self-imposed - that alternative design solutions for this property could be reviewed wherein the applicant could meet the minimum setback requirements - literal interpretation for enforcement of a 5 foot sideyard setback does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by others of the same zoning district - there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property Discussion ensued relative to sideyard setbacks and variance requirements for a detached garage. Planning Commission Minutes -3- March 27, 1990 Mr. Thomas Smith, the applicant, addressed the findings for denial by stating the following: - safety: Limiting the entrance to the garage to ten feet would not provide adequate room for his wife to park in the garage and walk around to the passenger's side to remove their infant child; that recently an adjoining neighbor was assaulted outside their garage and knocked unconscious. - Uniqueness of the existing residence: The house is unique since it is the only non-tract residence in the neighborhood; that the others have attached garages; and, a detached garage would keep his house unique. - Special Circumstance: The neighboring structure is 26 feet away from the proposed garage and it would not infringe upon the neighbors in any way. In response to Commissioner Alne's question regarding why the applicant had not considered setting the garage back further on the lot, Mr. Smith stated that he does not want to loose garden space; not only would the garage block part of the rear yard, but the driveway itself would take up valuable garden space as well. Commissioner Meyer reported on the Site and Architectural Review Committee's discussion of March 20, 1990, noting that the Committee is supportive based upon the recommendation from the Architectural Advisor that the garage be setback 12 feet. Commission Discussion: Commissioner Fox elaborated on the neighboring home, which is approximately 26 feet from the proposed garage. Commissioner Christ reminded the Commission of the importance to address the findings which would have to support the variance; and, that the property would independently have to prove uniqueness of itself. Discussion ensued relating to findings to support the variance and a continuance was suggested for the purpose of investigating alternatives to the variance request, since, as Commissioner Christ pointed out, it would not be wise to mislead the applicant by suggesting that there would be reason in the future to find this particular lot unique in size or shape; that if the Site and Architectural Review Committee helped him to redesign the garage with a 5 foot setback, there would be no need for this application to return to the Commission. The Public Hearing on V 90-04 was opened. Public Comments: There were no comments from the public. Planning Commission Minutes -4- March 27, 1990 M/S:Olszewski, Wilkinson Motion to continue V 90-04 to the Site and Architectural Review Committee, meeting of April 3, 1990, to look into design alternatives; an(l, subsequently continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 1990, unanimously carried, 7-0-0. 1. ~P 90-02 Zabaldo, P. Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Pat Zabaldo for approval of a Use Permit to operate a 5400 sq. ft. (283 seats) live- entertainment night club located at 1875 South Bascom Avenue, in the Pruneyard Shopping Center, in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Chairperson Perrine read the Application into the record. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Planning Director, reviewed the Application and discussed the Staff Report. Maps and architectural renderings were presented and he noted the following: - Staff met with applicant and reviewed Conditions of Approval - modifications to Condition Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 and the addition of Condition No. 21, review of the Use Permit in 12 months. - City Attorney's revisions to Staff's proposed Conditions Nos. 14, 19 and 20; including findings to support these conditions; and suggested modification to Staff's Condition No. 20. - initiation of various programs to mitigate police service calls - recommending denial Commissioner Christ informed the Commission and the public that, although, he was not present for the discussion of this item at the March 13, 1990, Planning Commission meeting, he has kept abreast of the issues surrounding it and has reviewed all documentation available. Commissioner Olszewski stated that he was overwhelmed with the numerous modifications to the conditions and specified the 12 month review, and asked why the review was necessary since the proposal was for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Piasecki responding to concerns relating to Condition No. 12, stated that the intention was for a follow up onnew programs being initiated. Commissioner Olszewski discussed the following: - whether there was evidence to substantiate requiring the provision of food services - setting a precedent for other similar proposals - fairness of the imposed conditions upon the applicant Planning Commission Minutes -5- March 27, 1990 Mr. Fred Sahadi addressed the Commission, and expressed the following: - agreements reached between himself and the Chief of Police appear altered - Condition 20 was to be detailed by the Applicant and Staff - addition of Condition 21 was a surprise - first time conditions added that were not part of the meeting between the Chief of Police, Staff and the applicant - burden regarding Condition No. 9, the 12 month review - requested Condition No. 10, occupancy of 230 be changed back to 280 - requested deletion of Condition 16, accessory food service provision - requested elimination of Condition No. 17 since it is a "reflection" of No. 9 - consideration of sales tax revenue received by the City for establishment of this type - requested that Condition No. 20 be eliminated Commissioner Fox asked if the Commission had authority to review an application if the review process was not specified in the Conditions of Approval. In response, Mr. Piasecki noted the City had the authority to review use permits regardless of the Conditions of Approval, if the establishment was deemed a public nuisance. Mr. Piasecki also noted that relative to Condition No. 17, staff's intention was to place on notice future operators. Commissioner Christ asked if the "live-entertainment" was specified. The City Attorney cautioned that although "live-entertainment" could be specified, it would be difficult to specify types of music, etc. Mr. Piasecki drew the Commission's attention to Condition No. 13 of the Conditions of Approval, relating to the operational format. Chairperson Perrine opened the Public Hearing on UP 90-02. wished to address the Commission at this time. No one Mr. Fred Sahadi addressed the operational format: - included as part of his lease agreement and not necessary in the Conditions of Approval - the City has the right to approve the lease - suggested that the City Attorney draft a lease that would ensure the correct operational format Commissioner Olszewski expressed the following concerns and the Planning Director replied: - regarding Condition No. 9, the 12 month review - does not specify party preparing the report - Director's Reply: Staff would prepare and Applicant could submit a statement - regarding Condition No. 10, occupancy - was not supportive of limiting occupancy to 230, asked how the figure was determined - Director's Reply: discussion at the meeting between the Chief of Police, Planning Staff and the Applicant, who expressed agreement to the limitation Planning commission Minutes -6- March 27, 1990 - regarding Condition No. 16, accessory food service - expressed disagreement (citing Pedro's), asked where condition developed- Director's Reply: Chief of Police claimed establishments that provide food service are less likely to request police services. Commissioner's Comment: noted lack of evidence to support Chief of Police's claim - regarding Condition No. 17, Use Permit Review - questioned definition of the term "mini-disorderly;" asked about deleting the language "assault, narcotics violations, driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or other drugs, etc.;" since the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is responsible - Director's Reply: definition "mini-disorderly" initiated from the State and the language "assault, narcotics violations, driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or other drugs, etc.," is a clarification of "mini-disorderly;" and that the term would provide notice to subsequent operators. Commissioner's Comment: regarding the second paragraph of Condition No. 17, hours of operation, and the accessory food services - opposed to limitations on hours of operation and provision of accessory food services - regarding Condition No. 20, Police Service Fees - concerned that requesting such a fee could encourage the management of the proposed establishment NOT to call the police even though there is a need; Commissioner Fox questioned the appropriateness of comparing police service calls generated by a book store with those generated by a nightclub and suggested a comparison between similar uses. Mr. Piasecki stated that the intention of Condition No. 20 is that substantial activity in one area could limit police services to the rest of the community; that the applicant should be required to pay for extraordinary police services rendered. Commissioner Fox reaffirmed his position that a fee be based upon establishments of similar nature would be more appropriate. Commissioner Alne asked if all future applicants would have the same fee imposed upon them. In response, City Attorney Seligmann stated that it would be appropriate if the proposed use were based upon the same findings of fact. Mr. Peter James, 705 West Valley resident, addressed the Commission stating that he had been unable to avoid being involved in bar related incidents at the Pruneyard and had not received appropriate police support from the management or private security; that the Campbell Police Department was too overworked to provide proper follow-up to the incidents; and, that he concurred with Commissioner Olszewski's concern that the proposed "police fee" could encourage the management not to call the police if there is a need. Planning Commission Minutes -7- March 27, 1990 Commissioner Christ noted that Condition Nos. 17 and 20 would be supportive of the Applicant and the City, if the fee could be reviewed and raised or lowered depending upon impacts to the Police Department. Further, Commissioner Christ offered support for the proposal if the words "raised or lowered" were to be added to Condition No. 20, and, that the Use Permit be reviewed on an annual basis to determine the appropriate fee. Commissioner Olszewski stated that he would prefer that an in-depth study be required by the Police Department to develop methocology of the proper fee and that determination of a fee should not be a function of the Planning Commission. He indicated that it would be difficult to prove where problems originated after or during the proposed hours of operation near the establishment. Mr. Piasecki stated that police reports are very specific in ascertaining where a person came from. Commissioner Alne reviewed Condition No. 17, stating that it is redundant since the Police can revoke the Use Permit if a nuisance occurs. He made the following comments in opposition to the proposal: - establishment should be responsible for extraordinary police activity since it would impact the rest of the community - no response could be obtained from the operator regarding the past performance relative to the number of policing activities mitigated by management - proposed operator is the same that currently operates Boswells, previously censured due to numerous problems - management of Bosewells indicated that they were buffers and offered no examples of situations resolved by the private security Commissioner Fox would support Condition No. 20 if it were based upon performance bond from information provided in the annual review. Commission Christ noted his support if the following were addressed: - deletion of Condition No. 9 - revise Condition No. 10 to occupancy level of 280 - delete Condition No. 16 and all findings relating to it, since there is no evidence of support - delete Condition No. 17 - modify Condition No. 20 to adjust the fees after an annual review, since there is no experience for setting a fee base Further, Commissioner Christ noted his reluctance to support the proposal but felt implementation of requested programs and the added conditions would provide a test for the City as well as the applicant. He stressed the following: - applicant can hire a consultant if he is in disagreement with the fee base Planning Commission Minutes -8- March 27, 1990 would not like to see fee based upon other nightclubs, since problems exist with other nightclubs suggested using a similar fee for all use permits Commissioner Olszewski raised the question of why there was a Negative Declaration prepared if the impacts were great enough to require a police service fee, and that City Council should decide the fee amount and make it a City-wide program. Mr. Sahadi addressed the Commission noting that a fee of $8500 was discussed at the joint meeting between Staff, Chief of Police and the Applicant, and requested that Condition No. 20 is arbitrary as it stands. He requested that a reasonable fee standard of $5000 be set and asked if a fee would be placed on all applications of this kind in Campbell. M/S: Meyer, Alne Motion to Close the Public Hearing unanimously carrie4, 7-0-0. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the method of establishing the fee base. Mr. Piasecki explained that the method used was based upon presumed drop in visits expected by the Chief of Police. Commissioner Meyer stated concern about the impacts this establishment would have on the rest of the community and noted her desire for an annual review. Commissioner Olszewski initiates discussion for a proposed motion , as follows: Approve the application, incorporating the Condition of Approval and Revised findings submitte~ by the City Attorney OhM arch 25, 1990, modifying the following: Condition No. 7 - extend hours of operation to 2:00 a.m.; Condition No. 10 - revised to indicate an occupancy level of 280; delete Condition 16 regarding accessory food services and Findings Nos. 5, 9 relating to accessory food service; revise Finding No. 7 to reflect the revision of Condition No. 7; and, delete Condition No. 20. Discussion on Motion Commissioner Christ stated that he would not support the motion if Condition No. 20 were deleted but agreed to second the motion if reworded to require an annual review which would provide a recorded experience relative to a base fee for police service so that the cost could be adjusted up or down according to the experience. Commissioner Wilkinson stated that he could support the motion if the fees are not comparable to a bookstore or a library. Commissioner Fox concurred. Planning Commission Minutes -9- March 27, 1990 Commissioner christ disagreed since any use beyond that of a bookstore or library would be an imposition to the rest of the community. Discussion ensued relative to revising Condition No. 20 and the Planning Director suggested the following wording: "Recognizing the potential extraordinary police service costs associated with nightclubs the applicant shall sign an agreement to pay an annual police service fee. The amount of the fee shall be based upon extraordinary costs to serve the subject nightclub/live-entertainment establishment with exceeds the cost to serve general commercial uses of a similar size in a similar location. The police service fee shall be determined by the City Staff. If the applicant believes the fee is excessive he has the option of paying for an independent consultant to be retained by the City to assess the extraordinary level of police services necessary to serve the nightclub use. The consultant report shall identify an appropriate police service fee necessary to offset the identified extraordinary costs. The amount of the fee shall be determined and paid prior to commencement of operation and annually thereafter. The fee may be changed on an annual basis by the City Council if the police costs per hour are determined to have risen or the operational costs are demonstrated to be less, based upon police call performance for the proceeding year. The final agreement and formula shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to commencement of operation. The applicant shall also be responsible for any costs beyond those identified in the report if documented to occur during any calendar year." Commissioners concurred with the suggested wording and further discussed the motion. Commissioner Christ summarized the Commissioner's feelings when he stated that support for this motion, although risky, would provide a good opportunity to examine placement of restrictions on establishments of this nature; that operations of this type should understand their impact upon police services in the community; that operators should be required to be responsible for their activities; that this is a creative solution to previous problems experienced; and, noted that this action will be a pivot to the future. AMENDED MOTION: N/S: Olszewski, Christ Notion to adopt Resolution No. 2665, approving the application, incorporating the Conditions of Approval and Revised Findings submitted by the City Attorney on Narch 25, Planning Commission Minutes -10- Narch 27, 1990 of 1990, iodifying the following: Condition No. 7 - extend hours of operation to 2:00 a.m., revising Finding No. 7 to reflect the revision; Condition No. 10 -- revised to indicate an occupancy level of 280; delete Condition 16 regarding accessory food services and Findings Nos. 5, 9 relating to accessory food service; and, revising Condition No. 20 as per wording provided by the Planning Director, carried on the following roll call vote: Roll Call Vote on Notion: AYES: Co~missioners: Christ, Fox, Wilkinson, Olszewski, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: Alne, Neyer ABSENT: Commissioners: None. The Planning Commission recessed at 10:30 p.m., and reconvened at 10:45 p.m., with all Commissioners present. 3. S 90-03 Abdollahi, M. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Michael Abdollahi, on behalf of Mayland Builders, for approval of a Site and Architectural application to allow the construction of four single-family residences on properties known as 1420 & 1422 Harriet Avenue, in an R-l-9 (Single-Family Residential/ Low-Density Residential) Zoning District. Chairperson Perrine read the Application into the record. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Planner II, reviewed the Application and discussed the Staff Report. The Staff recommended approval of the application. Commissioner Meyer reported on the Site and Architectural Review Committee's discussions noting that the recommendation was for approval of the application, as redlined to add landscaping. The Public Hearing on S 90-03 was opened. Commission at this time. No one wished to address the Commission Discussion: Discussion ensued between Commissioners Olszewski, Fox and Staff relating to: - architectural compatibility of the design - height of the buildings - square footage of the buildings - surrounding structures built approximately 40 years ago N/S: Meyer, Christ Notion to Close the Public Hearing unanimously carried, 7-0-0. M/S: Meyer, Fox Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2666, incorporating the attached findings, subject to the Conditions of Approval, approving the proposal, as redlined. Planning Commission Minutes -11- March 27, 1990 Discussion on Motion: Commissioner Olszewski expressed concern relating the compatibility of surrounding older structures noting that this application could raise the prices of homes in the area making the market more difficult to enter. S 90-03 carried with the followinq Roll Call Vote: AYES: Commissioners: Perrine NOES: Commissioners: ABS~: Commissioners: C~rist, Fox, Alne, Heyer, Wi/kinson, Olszewski, None None 4. UP 90-04 Hess, R. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Raymond Hess, for approval of a Use Permit to allow a non-profit vocational training school, located on property known as 90 East Latimer Avenue, in a PF (Public Facilities) Zoning District. Chairperson Perrine read the Application into the record. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Planning Director, reviewed the Application and discussed the Staff Report, noting: - Staff is recommending approval - proposal is consistent with the General Plan - Zoning is complementary to other developments in the neighborhood - landscaping will be upgraded and will improve the appearance - hours of operation can be addressed at the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting - lighting details for the back parking area to be discussed at the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting - there will be no more than thirty students at any one time - there will be no installation of materials on the site A map and architectural renderings were on display. Commission Discussion: Discussion ensued relating to the landscaping and hours of operation. Mr. Raymond Hess addressed the Commission noting that installation on the site is necessary for training purposes. Mr. Piasecki stated that if that is the case, trash enclosures must be addressed. Mr. Hess indicated that: - a 4'X 8' mock up, 2"X 6" wall with a small entry used for the installation practice would be Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 27, 1990 - he intends to provide extra trash pick up as often as necessary - there would never be any danger of fire and that the grounds would be kept neat at all times Commissioner Christ suggested that this application to return to the 'Site and Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Olszewski asked about the storage of hazardous materials. Mr. Hess explained that adhesive materials would be stored in gallon containers and that most linoleum installations would be dry allowing the materials to be reused. Commissioner Olszewski expressed concern regarding the amount of floor covering materials that would be disposed of. Commissioner Alne asked how many square yards of carpeting and linoleum would be disposed of and in response, Mr. Hess indicated that approximately 750 yards of vinyl and approximately 100 yards of carpet would be disposed of monthly. Commissioner Meyer reported on the Site and Architectural Review Committee's discussions noting the recommendation for approval, as redlined to address: - handicapped parking - access in and out of the building The Public Hearing on S 90-03 was opened. Public Comments: Jana Obar, 45 Sanderling Court, addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the proposal for the following reasons: - use of the property as a training center - excessive traffic - narrow entryway - additional noise - hours of operation - excessive noise - construction workers arriving at doing work as if the project were already approved Chairperson Perrine informed Ms. Obar that the owners of the property have the right to clean up and make improvements to their property. Commissioner Alne asked if Ms. Obar was objecting to the Public Facilities Zoning and Ms. Obar stated that she objected to traffic generated by a Public Facilities Zoning Designation. Discussion ensued and the following was stated by Commissioners: Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 27, 1990 - the building has been closed for a long time - asked of speaker would object to any/and/every proposal for the use of this facility - the building was a post office before the townhomes were built. - compared the concerns of the residents of those townhomes to people who buy homes next to an airport and then complain about the airport. Mark Niver, 46 Albatross Court, made three points: - post office closed at 6:00 p.m., on weekdays and that there was no noise impact during the later evening hours - concern about future operations, i.e., a machine shop - who would respond if there was a nuisance on the property and would fees be charged - requested that the hours of operation be limited. City Attorney Seligmann informed Mr. Niver that relative to noise that the City does not have a noise Mr. Piasecki addressed the concern of a future machine shop, by stating that the Conditions of Approval would specify the type of use. Commissioner Olszewski suggested that since there is no noise ordinance that a condition be added to the conditions of approval to limit noise generation to the inside of the building. Mr. Dave Ableson, the end unit, requested that the post office facility be torn down and the townhouse be put there. He suggested that trees be place along the back wall to buffer the sound that would be generated from the 90 East Latimer site. Commissioner Alne felt that the suggestion for a tree buffer on the residential side of the property line might be a good solution. Commissioner Fox stated that trees to do NOT buffer sound, but amplify it. Mr. Hess indicated at he would make sure that: - radios and installation noise would be kept to a minimal - loud stereos in the parking lot would not be permitted - he appreciated the concern ~ince he is a home owner - reviewed his schedule for the proposed year relative to sound generation times, etc. - stated that if neighbors have a noise problem and will come to him, he will take care of it - explained that he had to provide training at night since many of the students work day time jobs and it is essential for them to attend during non-working hours Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 27, 1990 Mr. Glenn Morton addressed the Commission, 40 Puffin Court, suggesting limiting the hours of operation; that a day care facility would be a better use for that site; and, that the property is improperly zoned and should be zoned residential. Mr. James Olivery, 48 Sanderling Court, repeated other neighbor's concerns relating to limiting hours of operation so that he could have "peaceful enjoyment of his property. Ms. Sandra Loethen, area resident, circulated a letter expressing her concerns reviewed the following: - depreciation of property value if the use were approved - increased traffic/noise/congestion - risk of crime Commissioner Perrine read the letter into the record and the letter dated March 27, 1990, from Mr. Leothen, was accepted and filed within the Planning Commission folder. M/S: Alne, Olszewski Motion to close the Public Hearing on UP 90-04 was unani]aously closed, 7-0-0. Commissioner Olszewski asked Staff about the process of changing the zoning in this location. Mr. Piasecki stated that it would be a lengthy process since the property is owned by a federal entity. Commissioner Christ felt that the proposed hours were reasonable. Commissioner Meyer suggested review of this use permit in six months and Mr. Hess was not in favor of the review due to his initial investment. Commissioner Christ agreed that a six month review would be a detriment to the applicant; that a more reasonable solution would be to add conditions to address concerns; that trash pick ups be done earlier in the morning; and, that no operation of noisy machinery would take place outside the building. Commission Wilkinson asked for a condition that would revise the conditions if noise violation occur rather than shutting the school down. Commissioner Olszewski supported the idea to eliminate the six month review suggestion. Commission Christ proposed the following addition of conditions: - that hours of operation be limited to between 7:00 a.m., to 10:00 p.m., on three weeknight, and Saturday - that no operation of any kind be conducted outside of the building Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 27, 1990 Mr. Hess explained the three times a year, he has an outside demonstration outside the building and requested the conditions allow this. Commissioner Christ added to the suggested conditions that: - that operational hours from Monday through Friday will be from 7:00 a.m., to 6:00 p.m. The Planning Director suggested that the condition reflect that: - limit the permitted use to floor covering and installation - that the maximum number of students be limited to 30 - include informal review in 6 months Commissioner Christ does not care to limit the number of students. City Attorney Seligmann suggested additional finding be added to address the new conditions of approval. M/S: Christ, Meyer Motion to adopt Resolution No. 2667 approving the Use Permit to allow a non-profit vocational training school, a~ending the Conditions of Approval as follows: 1) three nights a week the hours are limited to 7:00 a.m., to 10:00 p.m., on Monday through Friday hours of operation are limited to 7:00 a.m., to 6:00 p.m.; 2) that the use per mit be limite~to floor covering installation; 3) that there be an informal six-month review for the purpose of mitigating any problems that~ayarise; and that the following findings be changed to reflect the amended conditions; 1) that the proposed use is surrounded by residential use; 2) that the use during the evening hours could disrupt thepeace and welfare of the residents; and, 3) that activities that occur outside the building could disturb thepeaceand welfare of the surrounding residents and operations should be restrained inside the building; Site Plan findings listed on page two of the Staff Report, dated March 27, 1990, are also be ~ade ~ of the findings for approval, carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Co---issioners: Olszewski, NOES: ABSENT: Co~missioners: Conissioners: Christ, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Wilkinson, Perrine None None Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 27, 1990 5. UP 90-05 Pinn, A. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Alan Pinn for a Use Permit to allow outdoor patio dining at an existing restaurant (Pedros) and recognition of an existing use allowing on-site sale of liquor, on property known as 499 East Hamilton Avenue, in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Chairperson Perrine read the Application into the record. Mr. Tim Haley, Planner II, reviewed the Application and discussed the Staff Report, noting the following concerns: - limiting the seating to 24 - provide landscaping to the rear parking area An aerial map and architectural renderings were presented. Commissioner Christ asked about the parking problems that existed with the past operation. Mr. Haley noted that these parking issues are not a concern since the use is primarily for restaurant use and not primarily for bar use. Commissioner Christ expressed concern that approval of the outside seating might become an add-on to the bar, and would like assurance that this would be an extension to the dining area and not to the bar. Commissioner Alne noted his confusion as to why the Planning Commission was being asked to recognize an alcohol use? Mr. Haley explained that the use has been nonconforming and was capable of being grandfathered in. Discussion ensued relative to outdoor dining areas. Mr. Peter Mansfield, the operator, addressed the Commission requesting approval and noted the following: - that the intention of the outdoor seating is for dining - requested landscaping in the rear of the building - root removal and replacement street of trees. Commissioner Fox and Mr. Haley explained that the buffer wall in the rear of the property is for the residents in the second-story units beyond the wall and that the trees can be placed in a diamond shaped area between the parking stalls. Mr. Haley suggested that Mr. Mansfield contact the City Engineer regarding the requirement for street trees.. Discussion initiated by Commissioner Wilkinson ensued relative to street access to Almarida Avenue. The Public Hearing on UP 90-05 was opened. Planning Commission Minutes -17 March 27, 1990 Public Comments: There were no public comments. M/S: Olszewski, Fox Motion to Close the Public Hearing unanimously closed. M/S: Meyer, Aln~ Motion tx~grant a Negative Declaration and adopt Resolution No. 2668, approving the Use Permit, as redlined, carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Perrine NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Christ, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Wilkinson, Olszewski, None None SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS There were no subcommittee reports. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR The report of the Planning Director was accepted. The Commission noted the City of Campbell's birthday, since it was incorporated as a City on March 28, 1990. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 1990, adjourned at 12:55 a.m., to the next regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, April 10, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell. APPROVED: Jay R. Perrine Chairperson ATTEST: Steve Piasecki Secretary RECORDED: Karon Shaban Recording Secretary