Loading...
PC Min 06/26/1990 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY JUNE 26, 1990 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. Commissioners Present: Chairperson Jay Perrine Commissioner Ronald Christ Commissioner David Fox Commissioner I. (Bud) Alne Vice-Chairperson Jane Meyer Commissioner Brace Olszewski *Commissioner Mark Wilkinson was not present for the R011 Call, but arrived later at 7:55 P.M. Staff Present: Planning Director Steve Piasecki Senior Planner Randal R. Tsuda City Engineer Bill Helms City Attorney William Seligmann Assistant to the City Manager Barbara Lee Recording Secretary Kelly Yamada APPRQVAL QF MINUTES: M/S Meyer/Olzewski Planning Commission Meeting of May 26, 1990. Motioned to approve the Minutes as submitted. VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners Christ, Fox, Olszewski, Perrine. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Commissioner Wilkinson. Aine, Meyer, (~OMMUNICATIONS: Planning Director Piasecki noted three letters were received from the following: (1) Mr. Steve Ulett, Cambrian Community Council (received on June 22, 1990) for Item 2. (2) Mr. John B. La Rue & Mr. Russell B. Arnold, Western Federal Savings (dated June 26, 1990) for Item 2. (3) Mrs. Esther Garcia, 1251 Munro Avenue (received on June 22, 1990) for Item 3. Planning Commis~,._.n Minutes 2 June 26, 1990 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS: Chairperson Perrine announced that at the request of Applicant Esther Garcia, Item 3 would be heard fh'st. ORAL REOUESTS: - None. I~UBLIC HEARINGS: 3 UP 90-07 Garcia, E. Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mrs. Esther Garcia for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a secondary riving unit, to an existing single-family residence, on property located at 1251 Munro Avenue, in an R-1-9 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. (Planning Commission action final, unless appealed.) Chairperson Perrine read the application into the record. Staff Presentation: Planning Director Piasecki explained that the application was continued from the June 12, 1990 Planning Commission meeting due primarily to a concern over the "monotonous and continuous" elevation along the Munro Avenue frontage. He noted that the Applicant had since made numerous changes (as is detailed in the Current Proposal), and recommended the approval of the application, based on the support from both Staff and the Site & Architecture Review Committee. Chairperson Perdne asked if the commissioners had any questions for Staff; they had none. Vice-Chairperson Meyer presented the Site & Architecture Review Committee findings. She identified the following changes which led to a better plan: the roof line realignment, additional landscaping, and a new element to the breezeway. She announced both the Committee's and the Architectural Advisor's support of the application. Commissioner Olszewski asked if the Site & Architecture Review Committee addressed the relationship of the proposed architecture to those of adjacent residences. Vice-Chairperson Meyer stated that the Committee conducted a general discussion on this matter and was satisfied that the trees along the frontage would adequately conceal the structure. Commissioner Olszewski then asked if the proposed architectural materials were similar to those to materials found in the neighboring homes. Vice-Chairperson Meyer confmned that the materials were consistent, and Planning Director Piasecki added that many of the residences were ranch-style, consisting of stucco and wood sidings. Commissioner Olszewski repeated his question regarding how well the proposed building would be massed in comparison to other neighborhood residences. Planning Director Piasecki admitted that the structure was larger than many of the other homes, however, he supported Vice-Chairperson Meyer's response that the trees already obscure much of the existing facade. Planning Commis~,_ la Minutes 3 June 26, 1990 Commissioner Olszewski continued with a concern he expressed at the previous Planning Commission meeting over the differences between duplexes and granny units. Planning Director Piasecki distinguished a granny unit from a duplex in terms of its: size (restricted to a maximum of 640 square feet of living area), as well as the status of the property_ owner Chairperson Perrine asked Applicant Esther Garcia if she had anything further to say in regard to her application; she had nothing to add. The Public Hearing was opened. M/S Fox/Meyer Motioned to close the Public Hearing. Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Commissioners Christ, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Olszewski, Perrine. None. None. Commissioner Wilkinson. M/S Meyer/Christ Motioned to adopt Resolution 2679, subject to Staff Recommendations and ~ Commissioner Christ acknowledged the Applicant's willingness to work with Staff to achieve an improved project. Commissioner Olszewski also thanked the Site & Architecture Review Committee and the Architectural Advisor for their contributions in the application process. VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners Christ, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Olszewski, Perrine. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Commissioner Wilkinson. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: I City Manager's Office Five-Year Capital Improvement Program: Fiscal Years 1990/91 - 1994/95 - consistency with General Plan. Chairperson Perrine read the Special Presentation into the record, and introduced Assistant to the City Manager Lee. Staff Presentation: Assistant to the City Manager Lee presented the Fiv~-Y~ar Capital Improvement Prom, focusing on the following: (D-The process that led to the development of the Five-Year Capital Imt~rovement Pro_re'am. (2) A summary of the information contained in the report and where to find it. (3) Areas of particular interest to the Planning Commission. Planning Commis~,. a Minutes 4 June 26, 1990 Assistant to the City Manager Lee explained that the process began in the fall of 1989 with a solicitation of requests for capital improvements from individual City departments (a capital improvement project is any project or piece of equipment costing $5,000.00 or more). She noted that the City Council reviewed the Five-Year Capital Imt~rovement [~o. gr2~ both on a study session level, as well as a part of its Budget Heating, and that the report was "conditionally approved" on June 25, 1990. She stated that the total list of capital improvements totals approximately 24-million dollars, and as part of the new two- year fiscal time frame, that the tn'st two years would contain "formal appropriations," with the remaining years as forecasts. Assistant to the City Manager Lee then referred to the City Managers opening report to the City Council, and highlighted the Summaries & Project Listings as sections of particular use to the Commission for quick references. Assistant to the City Manager Lee then commented on the following major categories of interest to the Planning Commission (listed in Pro_iect Descriptions): (1) Street Improvements: - Hacienda/Winchester Interconnect Projects: - Bascom Signal - Hamilton Signal - Bascom/Pruneyard Signal - Winchester/Pdncon Signal - Campbell Avenue Signal - Pollard Road - San Tomas Aquino. Handicap Ramp Improvements (throughout the city). (2) parks & Landscaping with primary focus on renovating and rehabilitating the existing park facilities with the exception of the Los Gatos Creek Trail. * She pointed out that a policy change has directed all park dedication fees (collected under the Quimby Act) to accumulate in favor of future open space acquisitions (listed under Unfunded Projects). (3) ReAl?velopment Area: - Downtown Streetscape - Salmar Realignment - Museum Relocation - Gilman/Dillon Local Improvement District - Downtown Parking Improvements - Downtown Traffic Improvements - East Campbell Avenue Reconstruction - Railway Avenue Improvements - Transportation Improvements Commissioner Christ voiced a concern about the decision to accumulate the Quimby funds, stating that a delay in purchasing open space could result in land that either is no longer available or developed to the extent that it would be too costly. He asked if there is any other kind of available funding to ensure that such consequent changes to the General Plan would be met. Assistant to the City Manager Lee responded that no such extra planning Planning Commiss._.~ Minutes 5 June 26, 1990 exists for the preservation of open space. She identified the Five-Year Capital Im_rrrovement Pro_re'am as "identifying a need." Planning Director Piasecki supported Assistant to the City Manager Lee's comment regarding the function of the Program and stated that it was the Open Space Element would help identify land pockets that have open space needs. He added that the City could participate in the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority in November, 1990, as well as develop a strategy with members of the School District which would time acquisition of open space with the availability of School District land in the future. Commissioner Christ observed that the current development on the former high school site on Camden Avenue involved park dedication, and suggested that park development/ dedication may have to be considered along with any major developments in the City. Planning Director Piasecki acknowledged Commissioner Christ's concerns about financially supporting the General Plan goals and assured him that several methods would be researched. Commissioner Olszewski mentioned the existence of "underdeveloped" parcels. He asked if there were some "creative way" to combine the Quimby funds with private funds (i.e. through a development agreement) in the purchase of such undeveloped and/or underdeveloped parcels. Planning Director Piasecki said this was possible. Commissioner Fox asked whether the Quimby funds were reserved for only major purchases or if they could also be spent on the purchase of smaller parcels in high-density areas. He supported Commissioner Christ's concern of saving for a project that might never exist. Planning Director Piasecki said the Open Space Element would include a priority list (as developed in part by the Parks & Recreation Commission and Planning Commission) based on the need of private, public, and commercial areas to optimize open space sites. Commissioner Olszewski asked about the status of Route 85. City Engineer Helms said the construction of Route 85 was on schedule and that the portion running through Campbell would be complete in late 1993 or 1994. Commissioner Olszewski then asked how the Route 85 construction would affect the street improvement projects listed in the Five-Year Capital Improvement Project, in particular, the Pollard Road project. City Engineer Helms announced that the Santa Clara Traffic Authority in tandem with the Five-Year Capital Improvement Pro_iect would complete all work on Pollard by replacing the area between Moore Avenue and the extension of Harriet Avenue. Chairperson Perrine asked whether Prometheus Development was financing the signal interconnect project. City Engineer Helm answered that Prometheus will construct a portion of the interconnect system from April Avenue (the first signal east of Bascom Avenue) to Winchester Boulevard. Chairperson Perrine then asked if developers would help with the Salmar Avenue realignment. Assistant to the City Manager Lee confirmed that private development could finance part of the project, however, that it rests on the synchronization of private development with the project time line. Commissioner Olszewski then asked if private development was a prerequisite to the Salmar Avenue project. Assistant to the City Manager Lee assured him that the Redevelopment Agency intends to coordinate the Salmar Avenue realignment with the installment of private development. She clarified that the appropriation indicated in the Planning Commiss~...l Minutes 6 June 26, 1990 Five-Year Capital Improvement Project provided funding for the Salmar Avenue project in the event that such a coordination could not take place. M/S Meyer/Oiszewski Motioned to approve the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program: Fiscal Years 1990/91 - 1994/95 subject to Staff Recommendation, and found it to be consistent with the General Plan. VOTE: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Commissioners Christ, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Olszewski, Perrine. None. Commissioner Wilkinson. * Was not present for entire presentation of Item 1. None. Chairman Pen/ne thanked Assistant to the City Manager Lee for her presentation. 2 GP 90-03/ ZC 90-03 City-initiated Continued Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated application to amend the General Plan changing the Land Use Designation from Industrial to Commercial; and, a Zone Change from M-1-S (Light Industrial) to PD (Planned development) on property located at 535 Westchester Drive, the former Winchester Drive-in site (Tentative City Council Date: July 17, 1990) Chairperson Pen/ne read the application into the record. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Tsuda explained that the application was continued from the May 22, 1990 Planning Commission meeting to allow both Western Federal Savings and the Cambrian Community Council time to examine the application in greater detail and to formulate individual recommendations. He then summarized the progress of the application since the May 22, 1990 Commission meeting as follows (see Back_mound and Discussion): (1) Staff found both the Traffic Impact Study and the Fiscal Impact Analysis (submitted by Western Federal Savings) "generally consistent" with Staffs previous findings. (2) Western Federal Savings submitted a letter (dated June 26, 1990) in support of a Mixed Use development, however, stated a willingness to market the site as Destination Commercial. The letter also addressed the intent of Western Federal Savings to market its property as Mixed Use if the Destination Commercial classification did not generate enough interest. (3) The Cambrian Community Council also submitted a letter (received June 22, 1990) in support of a Mixed Use designation, consisting of both Destination Commercial coupled with a "low traffic-generating use." (4) The City of San Jose submitted a letter (dated June 19, 1990) requesting a "complete traffic analysis" which would include a study of several additional intersections in the City. Senior Planner Tsuda explained that Staff could not prepare a detailed traffic study at this time, however, such an analysis would take place at the Planned Development Permit stage. He also pointed out that a previous traffic analysis did Planning Commissl,.. Minutes 7 June 26, 1990 already take into account several San Jose intersections and indicated that the neighboring road system could accommodate a Destination Commercial designation. Senior Planner Tsuda concluded his report by supporting the proposed Destination Commercial use as "the most appropriate" use of the site for the following reasons: (1) It will cause less traffic impacts than the current Industrial use. (2) It imposes Floor Area Ratio limitations. (3) Noise buffers (i.e. sound walls, landscape buffers) could be used based upon the forecasts of a detailed traffic impact study. (4) It would provide a "substantial fiscal benefit to the City" (as confmned by the Keyser Marston Associates Fiscal Impact Analysis). (5) It will have minimal impacts on adjoining residential uses. Senior Planner further recommended the approval of a Negative Declaration of the proposed General Plan Amendment (GP 90-03) and the proposed Zone Change (ZC 90- 03) to be forwarded to the July 17, 1990 City Council meeting. Commissioner Alne asked whether Staff communicated the City's intention to achieve the maximum fiscal benefits to Property Owner Western Federal Savings (as indicated in the Western Federal Savings letter, page 2, paragraph 1). Senior Planner Tsuda pointed out that future fiscal benefits were just one of the many opportunities possible through the Destination Commercial designation. He repeated that the Mixed Use Development option (as supported by Western Federal Savings) would result in a greater traffic impact to the neighboring area than would the Destination Commercial option. Commissioner Alne then referred to Western Federal's request that the City "...provide the necessary approvals, financial assistance and staff support to mitigate the traffic and obtain the necessary right of ways..." (Western Federal Savings letter, page 2 paragraph 5) and asked if Staff supported this statement. Planning Director Piasecki responded that although Staff did not get into specifics, eminent domain powers could be implemented to obtain sufficient access to the site. He confLrmed Commission Alne's suggestion that Staff's willingness to support the application was defined too narrowly by the Property Owner. Senior Planner Tsuda also mentioned that the Planning Commission's action, at this stage, would not lock the City into any financial obligations. Commissioner Olszewski asked if nearby areas could also benefit from a City-initiated General Plan and Zone change. Senior Planner Tsuda responded that Staff was not directed to research other areas. Planning Director Piasecki suggested that an additional General Plan Amendment could be addressed at the request of the subsequent Developer, as in the example of a "box retail" development. Commissioner Olszewski observed the site could establish a desired street frontage by incorporating the pocket of land abutting McGlincey Lane. Senior Planner Tsuda explained that Staff addressed the "sensitivity" of the Destination Commercial use to the lack of a street frontage and despite the current lack of direct access, several developers "expressed interest" in the site. He further pointed out that Western Federal Savings also owned sites adjacent to the site entrance which could help to resolve the access problem. Commissioner Olszewski brought up a concern over "spot zoning" and "spot General Plan changes" and asked to what degree were developers interested in the site. Planning Director Piasecki stated that the Property Owner was currently working with one "box retailer," and that Staff also had been in contact with "box retail" brokers who were interested in the site. Planning Commiss~,.., Minutes 8 June 26, 1990 Commissioner Olszewski then asked what "benefits" would come to the City, and whether Destination Commercial was the "best possible recommendation from Staff" for the people living in the area. Senior Planner Tsuda again indicated that a Destination Commercial zone would draw fiscal benefits to the City, as well as direct the following adverse effects away from the adjoining land uses: taller structures, more intense development, increased privacy impacts, and multi-family development. Commissioner Olszewski was still not convinced that Destination Commercial was conducive to the nearby residences, however, did not favor the current Industrial zone. Commissioner Olszewski referred again to the "pocket" of land abutting McGlincey, observing that more prosperous developers would be attracted to a site with a frontage. Chairperson Perrine asked if a developer could pursue this idea of acquiring a larger site. Senior Planner Tsuda confu'rned that the "pocket" could be acquired through an additional General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Olszewski pointed out that such a move would result in additional "orphan pockets" that, under the Industrial zone, would be too small to develop. Commissioner Alne asked if everything south to the City Limits (down to CYistich Lane, to and including McGlincey) could be included in the proposed zoning change. Planning Director Piasecki explained that such an attempt would require a number of small parcel owners to work together without a motive or public purpose to develop Destination Commercial uses. He also pointed out that many of the current property owners were content with their current Industrial zone status. Commissioner Christ also reminded Commissioner Alne that a zoning change would yield little or no benefit to the surrounding area which consisted of percolation pond. Commissioner Christ then commented that whatever land was determined for a General Plan Amendment, access remained limited through Curmer and McGlincey via CYistich Lane, as well as through Union. He then pointed out that 'D', 'E', and 'F' traffic-level problems would make an already bad situation worse. He observed that Staffs recommendation to zone to Destination Commercial was "the least worst scenario," and that no "magical solutions" exist. Commissioner Wilkinson asked what negative impacts, if any, existed with the proposed zone change. Planning Director Piasecki responded that all potentially impacted areas would be researched and that such negative impacts would be mitigated, but agreed with Commissioner Wilkinson's comment that the zoning change would allow greater flexibility. Chairperson Perrine and Planning Director Piasecki stressed that a detailed traffic impact study, as well as a number of different strategies would eventually be determined once a specific developer and plan was implemented. Specific mitigation measures would also be researched at that time. Chairperson Perrine then asked if a Mixed Use designation could be proposed on-site once it passed at this initial stage. Senior Planner Tsuda said a Mixed Use designation would not be allowed without subsequent General Plan and rezoning amendments. Therefore, residential use, as an example, would not be allowed Commissioner Wilkinson then asked what would be a General Plan designation for Mixed Use. Planning Director Piasecki answered that all land use types are listed in the General Plan designation. He then cited NOCA (North of Campbell Avenue) as a recent example of Mixed Use. He pointed out that although Staff could not possibly identify all the possible mixed uses for the site, it supported the Destination Commercial use; he further reiterated that a developer could come back with an later idea for mixed use(s). Commissioner Planning Commiss~,,.. Minutes 9 June 26, 1990 Wilkinson clarified that the General Plan designation for Mixed Use (as suggested by the Property Owner and the Cambrian Community Council) included a combination Office/ Commercial/Retail use. Commissioner Wilkinson asked if why no consideration to broaden the use of the site existed if only four General Plan Amendments were allowed per year. Senior Planner Tsuda explained that Staff planned to "take back" this General Plan Amendment along, with the recently approved NOCA General Plan Amendment and combine the two projects into one General Plan Amendment. He explained that mixed use had been considered; however, City Council elected not to proceed with that option at this time. The Planning Hearing was opened. Mr. Steve Ulett, Cambrian Community Council Vice-Chair, 2640 Curtner Glenn Court, presented the views of the Cambrian Community Council as follows: (1) Recommended a Mixed Use zone change for opportunities like one "box retailer" (i.e. Costco) and an affordable senior housing development. (2) Pointed out that residences also existed in the area along with industrial sites. (3) Stated that Costco has been interested in the site for the last two years, and that staff neglected to research the impact of traffic in areas surrounding Costco outlets in both South Bay & East Bay locations before and after their development. (4) Referred to the City of San Jose letter (dated June 19, 1990) which states: "The typical Costco trip generation rate of 3.75 proposed by Wilbur Smith Associates appears to be low based on our experience with similar land use, i.e., the Story/McLaughlin Price Club used a 5.6 generation rate for the P.M. peak hour." Mr. Ulett concluded that the development of more than one "box retailer" would mm the community bounded by Camden, Curtner, McGlincey, and Union into a "parking lot." He emphasized the need for a comprehensive traffic plan which also addressed the future traffic created at the completion of Highway 85. Mr. Peter Evenhuis, Campbell Chamber of Commerce President Elect, spoke in favor of a possible Costco outlet at the site. He acknowledged the impact of traffic, however, identified the opportunities for tremendous sales tax revenues (noting that the average Costco purchase is $150.00) as well as job opportunities for young people (ages 18 - 20). He emphasized that the Chamber of Commerce did not take an official board of directors vote, and that individual members did express reservations about the traffic impact. Commissioner Christ asked if a Costco could possibly further hinder sales to existing Campbell retailers similar to the way sales have been presumably affected by renovations to both the Westgate and Valley Fair shopping malls. President Elect Evenhuis speculated that the impact would probably be "half and half." Commissioner Olszewski speculated that the costs to mitigate the future traffic impact might make the venture undesirable. President Elect Evenhuis cited the concern over traffic as why the Chamber of Commerce did not yet release an official stand, however, did acknowledge the great potential in revenues that such a business could bring. Ms. Karen Ensel, 955 Stolehurst Way, voiced the following concerns: (1) Traffic impacting the currently small size and poor condition of Curtner. (2) The possible expansion of the site which could possibly lead to further "pockets" in the area (as observed earlier by Commissioner Olszewski). Planning Commiss~,.., Minutes 10 June 26, 1990 (3) The lack of open space in that area. Ms. Ensel requested the Planning Commission look into the development of a park in addition to the Commercial use. Commissioner Christ asked if the General Plan Amendment allowed for a public facility under the proposed Destination Commercial designation. Planning Director Piasecld admitted that an open space feature would probably not be contrary to the stated General Plan, but questioned the location of the area for a public facility. Commissioner Fox asked approximately how many acres does it take to construct a "box retail" facility. Senior Planner Tsuda cited that a Price Club required anywhere from 14 to 16 acres. Commissioner Fox then commented that the site was "oddly shaped," and wondered if the previously discussed residential developments in addition to a "box retail" was even a possible consideration. Planning Director Piasecki identified the "non-rectalinear" shape of the site as one reason for Staffs lack of support for a Mixed Use. He identified the irregular shape of the site as problem in previous 1984 development. Commissioner Olszewski mentioned that Housing Element must provide housing "for all economic sectors of the community," and asked if the site could be zoned entirely for housing. Senior Planner Tsuda explained that Staff did research the impact that the proposed development would have on the availability of future housing and concluded instead that the South of Campbell Avenue (SOCA) area is a optimal location for redevelopment, indicating its proximity to both the downtown area as well as the Los Gatos Creek recreational area He reported that the SOCA report will include a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to Change the SOCA designation from Industrial to Residential. He also mentioned other opportunities for housing within the NOCA project, as well as the potential for multi-family residential dwellings at the Hamilton School site. Mr. Ken Pearsall, Cambrian Village Homeowners President and Cambrian Community Council member, pointed out that the current level "F" traffic rating at Camden and San Thomas would cause weekend gridlocks if a Costco was installed on the site. He recounted a similar traffic situation when the old Winchester Drive-in occupied the site. Mr. Pearsall also observed that streets would be further impacted if Highway 85 did not mitigate traffic as anticipated. He expressed support for a mixed use of residential and small retail shops in the area. Mr. John La Rue, Western Federal Savings Senior Vice President (Manager, Real Estate Group), presented the views of Western Federal Savings as follows: (1) Expressed willingness as the PropCr~y Owner to work under the conditions of the Staff proposal. (2) Stated that Western Federal Savings had lost millions of dollars on the property. (3) Admitted that the site was not big enough to accommodate all the needs proposed. (4) Acknowledged that several "box retailers" have expressed interest in developing on the site. (5) Anticipated a specific plan given the proper timing and a developer. (6) Stressed Western Federal Saying's longevity and participation in the community (7) Referred to the Nolte & Associates Traffic Impact Study that concluded similar results between both Destination Commercial as well as Mixed Use. Planning Commissi~.., Minutes 11 June 26, 1990 Commissioner Fox asked if Western Federal Savings could get sufficient revenues from current Staff proposal of Destination Commercial. Mr. La Rue speculated two "box retailers" would be easier to market and would generate more revenues. Commissioner Fox then asked if Western Federal Savings honestly supported the currently proposed application and whether or not it would "vigorously market" the site as Destination Commemial. Mr. La Rue responded with a preference to fh'st market the site, then return with a specific plan. He repeated that perhaps two "box retailers" could yield enough profits for Western Federal Savings, however, pointed out that only 4 to 5 known retailers exist. Commissioner Fox then asked if 2 similar "box retailers," such as a Price Club and a Costco, would be willing to exist on the same site. Senior Planner Tsuda said that this would not be an ideal combination, however, noted that a consumer-oriented "box retailer" could be marketed with a home-improvement (i.e. Home Club) retailer. Commissioner Alne asked if the present value of the site is considerably less than it would be with adequate access to a street frontage. Mr. Russell B. Arnold, Western Federal Savings Assistant Vice President (Asset Manger), explained that the difference between an accessible versus a non-accessible property relied on the costs involved in obtaining the access. He identified an entrance to McGlincey Lane through one of the three adjacent properties that Western Federal Savings holds interests in which could lend to a better access to the property. Commissioner Alne referred to the Western Federal Savings letter (page 2, paragraph 5) and asked if Western Federal Savings expected the City to supply the funding for an enhanced access to the site, and whether Western Federal Savings also planned to benefit in the subsequently increased commercial value of the property. Mr. La Rue stressed the intent of Western Federal Savings to build a viable project through a cooperative effort with the City. He further mentioned the loss of millions of dollars in the investment of the site. Commissioner Christ voiced a similar concern to Commissioner Alne's over the City's anticipated participation in off-site improvements. He speculated that the City could use its powers of eminent domain at the sole benefit to Western Federal Savings. He stated the City will not pay for traffic re-signalization in San Jose and asked if Western Federal Savings was willing to f'mance such off-site improvements. Mr. La Rue informed Commissioner Christ that Western Federal Savings had lost two-million dollars in the last eight months, and that its shareholders would not be willing to pay for any such improvements without a viable reason to so. Chairperson Perrine cautioned the Commissioners that a discussion over who would pay for off-site improvements was beyond the level of the current plan. He acknowledged the Property Owner's willingness to work cooperatively with the City and admitted that Western Federal Savings may have been too detailed in its letter in terms of which party would incur the costs. Chairperson Perrine then referred to the Traffic and Access in the Development Policies (page 2, Item C), involving the following in a future phase of the application: (1) "Development on this site requires a detailed traffic analysis..." which would happen at the time of the specific proposal. (2) "In conjunction with a development application .... the applicant shall submit information regarding off-site improvements..." as indicated earlier by Commissioner Christ. Planning Commissi~,a Minutes 12 June 26, 1990 Commissioner Olszewski agreed that discussion was getting far-reaching, however, noted that a Price Club or a Costco would greatly affect the McGlincey area. He then highlighted two central questions: (1) Is the current Industrial zone what the City wants? (2) If the zoning can be changed and traffic mitigation can be accommodated, is Destination Commercial the right way to go, and if so, is Planned Development the right way to go. Commissioner Olszewski spoke out in favor of Planned Development to allow the developer the greatest amount of flexibility. He further stated that the Planning Commission was concerned with the quality of life in that area and communicated this to the Property Owner. Commissioner Fox followed Commissioner Olszewski's concerns and wondered if the Destination Commercial designation will be too inflexible for the site to be marketed by the Property Owner. Chairperson Perrine responded again with Staffs full support of the Destination Commercial, in addition to Western Federal Saving's option to later work under a Mixed Use zone if the Destination Commercial does not succeed. Planning Director added that the area was not prepared to accommodate a residential development without a full redesign under the suggested Mixed Use option; Mixed Use would also ensure the failure of two "box retailers" on the site. He then explained that an all-Commercial use would provide the opportunity for other options such as an auto-mall, and a whole-sale warehouse district, and not just for "box retailers." Commissioner Aine wondered if the site is simply undevelopable, based on its location to streets such as Camden and Union which are currently under considerable traffic strain. He suggested widening Curmer to four lanes Mr. Steve Ulett, Cambrian Community Council Vice-Chair, responded to Commissioner ABe's suggestion by commenting that three jurisdictions exist along Curtner between Bascom and McGlincey, and felt that these jurisdictions would never agree to widening of Curtner. M/S Olszewski/Alne Motioned to close the Public Hearing. VOTE: Ayes: Noes.' Abstain: Absent: Commissioners Christ, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Wilkinson, Olszewski, Perrine. None. None. None. M/S Wilkinson/Meyer Motioned to adopt Resolutions 2677 and 2678, subject to Staff Recommendations. Findings For Approval, and D_.tY. glfl.illllgJ~ Policies. Also recommended that the City Council Approve Resolutions 2677 and 2678. Commissioner Alne stated that the proposed General Plan Amendment will give the City greater control of the site development. Commissioner Christ also stated that the Destination Commercial use was the "lesser of the two evils" when compared to the Mixed Use option. He repeated his concern over how the off-site mitigation would be addressed. Planning Commissit,., Minutes 13 June 26, 1990 Vice-Chairperson Meyer also supported the decision for Destination Commercial, stating her opposition to residential development on the "landlocked" site. She thanked Staff for its comprehensive report. Commissioner Olszewski assured that specific plans would be carefully analyzed at a later phase of the application process. He underlined the word "general" in General Plan. He believed that the current zoning of Industrial is unworkable and that something needs to be done. He also favored the Destination Commercial zone. Chairperson Pen/ne commented that the site is one of the few remaining large parcels of land in the City. He highlighted the Staff Report as helpful in reaching his decision. He stated the Destination Commercial zone would give the City more control in obtaining a workable development on the site. VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners Christ, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Wilkinson, Olszewski, Perrine. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. Chairperson Pen/ne announced a ten-minute break. MISCELLANEOUS 4 M 90-12 Anderson, K. Consider the application of Mr. Kurt Anderson for approval of a minor modification to a sideyard setback, to allow the construction of a second-story addition to an existing single-family residence, on property located at 1017 Almarida Avenue, in an R-1-6 (Single-family Residential) Zoning District. (Planning Commission action final, unless appealed.) Chairperson Pen/ne read the application into the record. Staff Presentation: Planning Director Piasecki presented the application, recommending approval of the application subject to the q2onditions of Approval. Vice-Chairperson Meyer presented the Site & Architecture Review Committee findings as red-lined in the plan. She announced the Committee's support of the application. Applicant Kurt Anderson, 280 West Campbell Avenue, explained that the request was for a minor sideyard modification, involving a two-story addition above the garage. He referred to written support of the modification. Mr. Anderson then asked the Planning Commission to consider referring future minor modifications to the Planning Director for final approval. He cited the City of Saratoga automatically approved applications for minor extensions along building lines pursuant to the written approval of the property owner's neighbors. Planning Director Piasecki acknowledged the City's ordinance regarding minor modifications could be changed to accommodate this method. Planning Commissi~... Minutes 14 June 26, 1990 Commissioner Olszewski asked how much the application cost. Mr. Anderson replied that the application process costs $150.00, however, if approved by the Planning Director under the guidance of the Architecture & Site Review Committee, the service would be free. He predicted similar applications will increase in response to rising property values and the concomitant popularity in home improvement. Commissioner Olszewski supported Mr. Anderson's suggestion. Commissioner Christ mentioned this suggestion was previously discussed and noted the time-saving benefit to the Planning Commission. M/S Meyer/Fox Motioned to approve M 90-12, subject to Staff Recommendation and ~ Asmr_0_ . VOTE: Ayes: Commissioners Christ, Fox, Alne, Meyer, Wilkinson, Olszewski, Perrine. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: N o ne. Commissioner Olszewski asked what process would take place to change the review of minor building line extensions from the Planning Commission level to the Planning Director level. Planning Director Piasecki responded the R-1 Ordinance would be put into the work program during the second year of the budget cycle. 5 Status Update City-initiated Status Report concerning the Open Space Element. Chairperson Perrine read the application into the record. Staff Presentation: Senior Planner Tsuda presented the Staff memorandum, highlighting the following: (1) The Draft Goals and Policies. (2) Next Steps in the Process. Chairperson Perrine asked how different the draft goal policies are from the current goals. Senior Planner Tsuda explained that the draft goal policies addressed specific needs and problems that have occurred since the adoption of the original plan. Chairperson Perrine referred to Policy 1.7 of the Draft Goals and Policies and asked what types of "innovative techniques" meant. Senior Planner Tsuda explained that "innovative techniques" included the following: (1) Working with the Santa Clara County Water District to work out an agreement for the impassive use of the City's percolation ponds. (2) Research various techniques to obtain funding (i.e. a land foundation, the Santa Clara Open Space Authority, etc.) Commissioner Fox asked what kind of control the City had over what happens to Campbell Union School District property in terms of both selling the property and future development. Senior Planner Tsuda explained that if land was sold, the future developer would be required to go through the City which controlled the zoning. He also mentioned that the City could purchase the land at a quarter of its property value under the Naylor Act. Planning Director Piasecki clarified a condition of the Naylor Act also stipulates that the land must be maintained as open space. Planning Commissi~.. Minutes 15 June 26, 1990 Chairperson Perrine asked if a "vest pocket park" could be considered for Almarida Drive. Senior Planner Tsuda explained that this topic will be evaluated through the Open Space Process, and identified Virginia Park and Gomes Park as existing "vest pocket parks." Commissioner Olszewski also suggested a "vest pocket park" in the downtown area. Planning Director Piasecki explained that the Planning Commission is faced with the challenges of little resources, much demand for open space, and the disposition of available School District property. He added that the prioritizing of parks in need will be the most challenging. Commissioner Christ suggested that the Planning Commission will need to focus on making the most efficient use of the City's existing open space and that the City will need to work with the School District to make its existing open space "more accessible and usable". Commissioner Willdnson asked how the City decides on what available open space lands to purchase. Planning Director Piasecki explained that such a decision would be make by the City Council, however, the Open Space Element would soon prioritize what sites were more favorable for purchases before going to the Council. Planning Director Piasecki also mentioned a "Disposition Plan" to achieve a conducive plan between the City and the Campbell Union School District. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the status of the Hamilton School site. Planning Director Piasecki explained the site would not be purchased for Open Space. Senior Planner Tsuda suggested holding a study session on the Open Space Element Project in preparation for a joint Planning Commission/Parks & Recreation Commission meeting tentatively scheduled for July, 1990. Commissioner Christ mentioned that his affiliation with the Open Space Task Force indicated many different community groups all interested in open space. He suggested delaying the study session until community input was gathered. Senior Planner Tsuda explained that if the Commission chose to delay the study session, then each commissioner should read the Draft Goals & Policies outline. Planning Director Piasecki suggested that a study session could be scheduled at the next meeting or individual meetings could be arranged. The Planning Commission agreed to hold a study session at its July 10, 1990 meeting with an option to further discuss the project with both Planning Director Piasecki and Senior Planner Tsuda. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR: The written Report of the Acting Planning Director was accepted. Vice-Chairperson Meyer questioned the status of the requested building color change at the comer of Budd & Winchester. Planning Director Piasecki responded that Staffs request had been ignored and that they would be more stem. Planning Commissi~... Minutes 16 June 26, 1990 Commissioner Olszewski announced that the Landscape Guidelines Committee had made tremendous progress. He mentioned research included several guidelines which had been collected from other cities and that the committee talked to a developer as well as landscape professionals. Commissioner Olszewski projected the final draft would be f'mished by July 13, 1990. He credited the student interns for their thorough and significant achievements in this committee's work. Planning Director Piasecki also mentioned the new Planning Commission agenda covers created by Senior Planner Tsuda on his new Apple Macintosh. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.M. to the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., City Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, California. APPROVED: Chairperson ATYEST: Secretary RECORDED: pc6-26.min(mc2) Recording Secretary