Loading...
PC Min 12/11/1990PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. CITY HALL, TUESDAY COUNCIL CHAMBERS DECEMBER 11, 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 CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairperson Jay Perrine Commissioner Robert Dougherty Commissioner David Fox Commissioner Jane Meyer-Kennedy Commissioner Alana Higgins Commissioners Absent: Commissioner I. (Bud) Alne Commissioner Mark Wilkinson Staff Present: Director of Planning, Steve Piasecki Planner II, Tim J. Haley City Attorney, William Seligmann Associate Engineer, Michelle Quinney Recording Secretary, Karon Shaban APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: On motion of Commissioner Dougherty, seconded by Commi~ioner Higgins, the minutes of the Planning Commi~ion meeting of November 27, 1990, were approved, as submitted. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMF~NTS PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. GP 90-04/ ZC 90/13/PD 90-08 Bowen, B. Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Bruce Bowen, on behalf of Ainsley Development, Inc., for approval of an amendment to the General Plan changing a Public/Semi-Public Zoning to Commercial Zoning District; approval of a Zone Change from PF (Public Facilities) to PD (Planned Development) Zoning District; and, approval of a Planned Development Permit to allow a 14,000 square foot retail center and a 4,000 square foot fast-food, drive-through restaurant, on property located at the southwest comer of Hacienda and Winchester Boulevard (3101 South Winchester Boulevard). Planning Commission Minutes -2- December 11, 1990 Chairperson Perrine noted the request from Mr. Bruce Bowen for continuance of Item No. 1, GP 90-04/ZC 90-13/PD 90-08. He read the application into the record and asked if anyone wished to address the Commission on the item. No one wished to speak. M/S: Fox, Higgins MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON GP 90-04/ZC 90-13 AND PD 90 -08 TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 8, 1991, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. (5-0-2) COMMISSIONERS ALNE AND WILKINSON BEING ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. COMMUNICATIONS: Planning Director, Mr. Steve Piasecki informed the Commission that communications were included in the Commission packets and pertain to items noted on the agenda. He drew attention to the following: - The revised Development Schedule for Item No. 4. - Summarized City Council Agenda. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. 2. UP 90-14 Public Hearing to consider the application Rezazadeh, F. of Mr. Farshid Rezazadeh for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow an on-sale beer/wine license in conjunction with an existing pizza restaurant on property located at 2099 A. South Bascom Avenue, in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. The Chairperson read the application into the record. An aerial map was displayed illustrating the surrounding uses. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Planner II, presented the Staff Report, discussed Police Department' s review of the proposal, and noted the following opposition received from two members of the public relating to the parking lot area, as follows: Excessive drinking Loitering by youth Throwing bottles/cans over the fence - Trespassing onto private property Mr. Haley stated that Staff will recommend approval with the addition of itions to resolve ~roblems associated with parking lot activities by Csu°~dm~tt~ng a security i>lan to the Police Chief and the Planning Director's approval. Chairperson Perrine declared the Public Hearing open. Public Comments: Planning Commission Minutes -3- December 11, 1990 Ms. Debra Nolan, Manager of apartments located at 52 Michael Drive, addressed the Commission to express concerns relating to: Loud music in the parking lot at late hours Cars burning rubber in the parking area - People throwing beer cans over the fence - Tenants cars being scratched She suggested that the fence between the parking area and the apartment be raised to eliminate trash being thrown over the fence; and prevent people entering the apartment parking area by climbing over the fence; and, that better lighting of the parking area be required. Commissioner Fox asked about the hours of operation and Mr. Haley reported that the restaurant would not be open later than 10:00 p.m. Chairperson Perrine asked Ms. Nolan if she believed the disturbances were coming from patrons of the pizza parlor and Ms. Nolan responded that the disturbances were caused by young adults drinking beer and wine in the parking area as late 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning. Commissioner Higgins suggested that a security gate would help to mitigate problems occurring at the apartment complex, that the problems are occurring after the pizza parlor is closed. Mr. Haley stated that since the problems are associated with improper lighting and low fences, are inherent with the parking lot area itself, and attractive to young adults for parking and drinking in the late evenings and early mornings. Discussion ensued between Commissioners and Staff regarding the following: Continuance of the item Surrounding uses - Six month review Mr. John Figueroa, 3404 Ridgemont Drive, Pruneyard Apartment Owner, discussed the following: - Height of the fence - Presented two police reports relating to incidents in the parking lot, a letter from the Police Chief requesting removal of the chain link fence, and a letter from a tenant who apprehended a burglar - Provided a petition signed by the tenants requesting.improved security, all night lighting, and raising of the fence m the rear parking lot area. Mr. Figueroa requested that the applicant's request be denied until a security plan is provided. Commissioner Fox indicated that these problems are with the lot and not associated with the pizza parlor business. Chairperson Perrine stated that he would like to see the security plan, and Commissioners Higgins concurred. Planning Commission Minutes -4- December 11, 1990 Commissioner Fox stated that he is not interested in placing the entire burden on the applicant since the problems are relative to the lot. Further, he asked the applicant if the Commission's continuation of this application to the January 8, 1991, meeting, would place an unnecessary hardship on his business operation. Mr. Razazadeh, the applicant, made the following comments: - Has experienced violations in the parking lot that required police intervention - The proposal is to provide, to the patrons of the restaurant, wine or beer with the pizza and not as a take out item - His business has only been in operation for four months, and the problems have occurred for several years A billiard hall has existed in the area for several years which stays open until 2:00 a.m., and is attractive to young adults - Kids do not come into the Pizzeria to buy beer, adults come into the restaurant to eat - Noted the expense to raise the fence and also noted that since the property owner has no interest in the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with meals, that the property owner may not be interested in raising the fence. Further, that the fence does not belong to him and his business closes at 10:00 p.m., well before the problems begin. There are only 7 tables within the restaurant Chairperson Perrine asked the applicant if he would object to continuing the application in order to provide staff with time to investigate where the problems are coming from. Mr. Razazadeh stated he would agree to a continuance to the January 8, 1991, meeting. Mr. Razazadeh added that problems will continue to occur whether or not his request is granted. Mr. Piasecki indicated that additional time would provide Staff with the opportunity to investigate mitigation measures with the property owner and discuss Police patrol of the area. M/S: Fox, Higgins MOTION TO CONTINUE THE APPLICATION TO THE JANUARY 8, 1991, COMMISSION MEETING, PROVIDING ADEQUATE TIME FOR REVIEW OF SECURITY MEASURES AND TIME TO TALK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED, 5-0-2, COMMISSIONERS ALNE AND WILKINSON BEING ABSENT. S 90-09 V 9O-O6 Shemirani, J. Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. Jay Shemirani for approval of a Site and Architectural Application to allow the move-on of two single-family homes and a variance for a garage setback from 25 feet to 20 feet on property located at 50 Catalpa Lane, in an R-l-6 (Single-family Residential) Zoning District. Planning Commission Minutes -5- December 11, 1990 The Chairperson read the application into the record. Site and Architectural Plans were displayed. Planning Director Steve Piasecki presented the Staff Report providing the following information: Location and surrounding neighborhood - Proposal is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinances - The property is subdividable under current ordinances - Application meets all the requirements - Tentative Map is approved - Does not exceed density requirements Mr. Piasecki distributed Chapter 21.42 of the Campbell's Zoning Code regarding Site and Architectural review. Further, he pointed out that he has highlighted areas that the Site and Architectural Review Committee is to consider. Some of these were: - Character - Stability - Integrity - Silhouette and massing - Location on the site, relationship to the neighborhood Exterior design Bulk - Street frontage. Further, Mr. Piasecki stated that there is no substantial issues relating to the variance request; however, the variance must be tied to the Site Plan, which is where Staff has concerns. He discussed the following Staff concerns relating to Staff's recommendation for denial of the Site and Architectural application: Compatibility with surrounding homes Detracts from the appearance of the neighborhood - Very few lots of this size are subdivided - Although, Mr. Shemirani has made significant improvements to the original proposal, his proposal is still not compatible to other structures in the area. - Staff suggested that one of the homes could be moved here and that the second residence be custom built to fit on Parcel B. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy presented comments from the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting of December 4, 1990. She stated that the Committee is recommending denial based upon the following: - Architectural Advisor's comments in opposition of the design and massing for this area, and, - Placement of homes of this design would create a substantial impact on the character and pattern of development in the area. The Chairperson declared the Public Hearing open. Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 11, 1990 Mr. Jay Shemirani requested approval of his proposal and discussed the following concerns: - He is being displaced by Highway 85 construction - His desire to preserve his home and his brothers home - His attachment to his home His decision to purchase the property was based upon conversation with the Planning Department, who expressed support for the proposal - The homes will be located at the beginning of the street and have little visual impact on the adjoining neighbors - A Dairy Queen is located adjacent to his property on one side, and a beauty salon on another side - There is 60 feet of space between the second house and that of Mr. Martins That Mr. Martin had requested that the fence behind him be replaced and noted his intent to do that There is a vacant lot across the street belonging to the Watsons, which has recently been subdivided - Seven different drawings were submitted to the Planning Department and it was his understanding that he and Staff were working together for a supportive recommendation. He stated that mitigation measures were addressed by the following: - Moving the houses from one place to another - Changing setbacks - Changing direction of the two-story element - Providing trees for screening - Adding wood siding even though many homes in the area have stucco siding He stated that Mr. Piasecki suggested that one of the homes could be saved and the other would have to be replaced with a custom built home. Mr. Shemirani affirmed his desire to preserve both homes, one belonging to himself and the other to his brother, since they are filled with family memories, which could never be replaced. Further, Mr. Shemirani noted the following efforts: - Met with neighbors to discuss their concerns - That various neighbors signed a petition stating that they had no problems with the proposal - That he was told that if he wanted to move his homes there, he would have to talk with Mrs. Watson and after various attempts to do so was turned down due to Mrs. Watson's duties as a Councilperson on the City Council Mr. Shemirani circulated pictures of the homes he is proposing to move onto 50 Catalpa to demonstrate that they are newer homes in good condition. He reiterated that the homes have historical meaning to him and he fears that Cai Trans will destroy them. Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 11, 1990 Commissioner Fox asked if Cai Trans paid fair market value for the homes and how long Mr. Shemirani had lived there. In response, Mr. Shemirani stated that Cai Trans had paid fair market value and that he had lived in the home for 8 years. Mr. Robert Finch, representing Mr. Shemirani, addressed the Commission noting the following: That Staff neglected to discuss compatibility with the applicant That all homes in the area should considered when reviewing the compatibility issue - Several homes in the area have the same square footage and are two story - Several homes in the area are not typical ranch style homes. He circulated several photographs of homes in the area - The empty lot across the street that has been subdivided and will be developed into newer homes - The proposal will upgrade the area - Homes should be saved, due to the housing shortages - The proposed move-on homes have a 25 percent coverage and the ordinance allows for 40 percent coverage Public Comments: Mrs. Kathleen Bull, 70 Catalpa Lane, noted that she would welcome new neighbors however she opposed the homes because she felt they were too large for the area, and that existing homes have large back yards and front yards for children to play. Mr. Jeffery W. Paleczny, 150 Catalpa Lane, noted his opposition relates to increased density from what currently exists, since the reason that he bought the home he now owns is that houses were on larger lots. Mr. Howard Martin, 54 E1 Caminito Avenue, noted his opposition which was contained in a letter from Mr. Kent Sargent, 52 Michael Drive, which he presented to the Commission, and distributed a Track Map and a Covenant Deed dated April 22, 1941 which contained various restrictions regarding the use of the land. Commissioner Dougherty asked the City Attorney how the Track Map and Deed impacted the City's ability to act on this matter. Mr. William Seligmann, City Attorney, indicated that deed restrictions are a civil concern unless the City is a party to the deed, which in this case, it is not. Discussion ensued relative to whether the track map includes the subject property at all. Chairperson Perrine called for a 10 minute recess at 8:55 p.m, to allow the applicant and staff to review the documents presented by Mr. Martin. Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 11, 1990 The Planning Commission meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m., with all Commissioners present, except for Commission Alne and Wilkinson. Mrs. Sally Howe, opposed the proposal due to the loss of open space. Joanna Danford, 7 E1 Caminto Avenue, expressed opposition. She did not want the neighborhood to change. John Madere, 61 E1 Caminito Avenue, expressed opposition to: Large homes with small yards Impact on the integrity of the neighborhood - Setting a precedent for new developments. Mr. John Yamen, owner of the adjoining Dairy Queen, expressed concern that in the future, Mr. Shemirani may complain about living too close to a Dairy Queen. Mr. Finch responded to the following concerns: -Setting a precedent - the lot is unique in that the size and shape of it is unlike any other in the area - Mr. Shemirani would not be in a position to complain about a business that existed prior to his move-on Open Space - the homes have a 25 percent lot coverage and a 40 percent lot coverage is allowable. Mr. Shemirani stated that he was confident about approval of his proposal since the Planning Department Staff had previously indicated that the lot could be subdivided for two homes, he met all the zoning and General Plan requirements; however, he was not prepared Staff's recommendation relating to the design of his home. He noted the following: - Proposal meets all City codes - The house currently on the lot has 1800 square feet his home is only 2200 square feet The homes will be placed at the curve of the road and will be less visible than other homes in the area. Commissioner Fox expressed the following concerns that: The subdivision of this lot creates the smallest lot in the - Parcel B is about one-half the size of other lots in the area that have homes of this size, - The homes are too close together - Travelling in an easterly direction, the proposed homes would be very visible, and, He would prefer placing the homes within a Planned Development Zoning District which would provide the Commission architectural control of the design of the homes. Further, Commissioner Fox concluded that he opposes the applicant request because of the size of the lots and not because of the size of the homes. Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 11, 1990 M/S:Meyer-Kennedy, Dougherty:MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON S 90.09/V 90-06 WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. M/S: Fox, Higgins: MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2717, INCORPORATING THE ATTACItF. D FINDINGS AND DENYING S 90--09 WAS PLACED ON THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. Commission Discussion of the Motion: Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy stated that she would be supporting the motion based upon recommendations from the Architectural Advisor and the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Dougherty noted that he would support the motion since placing large homes on small lots creates discontent between neighbors. Commissioner Higgins noted her familiarity with the site, and indicated concurrence with supporting the denial. Commissioner Fox suggested that this experience provides the Commission with the opportunity to investigate displacement and relocation of homes due to the construction of Highway 85. Further, Commissioner Fox asked if the findings contained within the Staff Report would support denial of the request for a variance, as well. Mr. Piasecki suggested the following wording: Lacking an approved architectural plan, the Commission cannot make the necessary findings to grant a variance. The makers of the motion were satisfied that the suggested wording would be an appropriate amendment to the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION: MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2716, INCORPORATING THE ATTACHED FINDINGS, DENYING S 90-09; AND, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2717, DENYING THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, INCORPORATING STAFF'S RECOMMENDED FINDINGS, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners: Higgins, Fox, Meyer-Kennedy, Dougherty, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Alne, Wilkinson MISCELLANEOUS 4. R 90-01 Consider the request for extension of a previously Dowd, E. approved Planned Development Permit to allow the EMD Properties construction of 32 townhomes; and Tentative Map approval, for properties known as 63-190 Page Street and 56-70 Foote Avenue, in a PD (Planned Development/Low-Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Planning Commission Minutes -10- December 11, 1990 Chairperson Perrine read the application into the record. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Planner II, presented the Staff Report and discussed the following: - Staff supports an extension to January 16, 1993. - The previously approved Tentative Subdivision Map will expire on May 1, 1992, and, - The item will be before the City Council on January 2, 1991. Specific questions relating to construction dates, from Chairperson Perrine and Commissioner Dougherty, were addressed. Mr. Haley informed the Commission that approval will provide the applicant with an additional two years to begin construction. Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee is recommending approval of the requested extension. Mr. Peter McMorrow, representing Mr. Ed Dowd, EMD Properties, made himself available for questions. C0mmi$$i0n Discussion: Chairperson Perrine asked if the circulation plan is acceptable to Staff, and Mr. Haley stated that the Planning Department is satisfied with the report. Further, Michelle Quinney, Associate Engineer, Public Works Department, concurred that the circulation plans were acceptable. M/S: Fox, Higglns MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT CITY COUNCIL EXTEND ITS APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT AND APPROVE THE REVISED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE UNTIL JANUARY 16, 1993, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED (5-0-2, COMMISSIONER ALNE AND WILKINSON BEING ABSENT. Mr. Haley noted that the Tentative Subdivision portion of the application would require approval of the City Council on January 2, 1991. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR In response to questions from Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, Planning Director Piasecki provided a brief oral review of actions taken at the City Council meeting of December 11, 1990, as follows: The project on 1265 and 1271 Burrows Road - 5 Single-Family Homes - Kurt Anderson - ZC 90-08/PD 90-02: Was pulled from the Consent Calendar, so that the San Tomas Policy could be reviewed. With regard to the San Tomas Policy and planned Study Sessions, the Commission discussed, the following: - Street improvements, - Land Use Element - Community Design - Housing Element, and - Circulation Element of the General Plan Planning Commission Minutes -11 December 11, 1990 Mr. Piasecki stated that these studies are included in the work program discussed in the two-year budget. Further, Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy asked about the referral from Council relating to the hobby kennel on 948 Crockett Avenue. Mr. Piasecki stated that the Council noted and filed the report. Commissioner Dougherty added that Councilmember Burr would like to see the permit revoked. Chairperson Perrine announced that the changing of the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson would occur at the January 8, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Haley announced that there would not be a Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting on Tuesday, December 17, 1990, due to the cancellation of the Planning Commission meeting of December 25, 1990. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:47 p.m, to its regularly scheduled Commission meeting of Tuesday, January 8, 1991, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell. The Planning Commission meeting regularly scheduled for December 25, 1990, has been cancelled. Respectfully Submitted by: Kax0n Shaban Reporting Secretary ATTEST: Steve Piasecki Secretary APPROVED BY: Jay R, Pcrrine Chairperson