Loading...
PC Min 04/11/1989 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES APRIL 11, 1989 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session in the City Hall Council chambers, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners: George Kasolas, Jay Perrine, Ronald Christ, James Walker, DuWayne Dickson, Bruce Olszewski; Planning Director Steve Piasecki, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney William Seligmann, and Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Cox~issioner Stanton. Chairman Olszewski noted that Commissioner Stanton's absence is excused for business reasons. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Perrine, Christ - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 1989 be approved as submitted. Motion carried 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Stanton absent, and Commissioner Kasolas abstaining due to absence from the subject meeting). COMMUNICATIONS Communications received pertained to specific agenda items. ORAL REQUESTS There were no Oral Requests. The set agenda proceeded. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items on the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 89-04 Strong, R. Continued public hearing to consider the application of Mr. R. L. Strong for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a secondary living unit on property known as 1484 Capri Drive in an R-i-10 (Single Family Residential, less than 3.5 units per gross acre) Zoning District. Planning Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report of April 11, 1989, noting that the applicant has presented revised plans addressing the concerns expressed by the Commission at the meetings of March 14 & 28; therefore, Staff is recox~ending approval of this application. -2- The public hearing on UP 89-04 was opened. No one wished to speak on this item. M/S: Perrine, Walker That the public hearing for UP 89-04 be closed. Motion carried 6-0-1, with Commissioner Stanton being absent. M/S: Perrine, Walker - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2586, incorporating the attached findings, approving UP 89-04 subject to the conditions indicated in the Staff Report of April 11, 1989, which include a stipulation that the revised garage plans be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. Discussion on motion Commissioner Dickson opposed the motion, noting that he felt that the unit was not harmonious with the neighborhood and these types of units should be attached, not detached, in that they add to the density. Commissioner Christ supported the motion, noting that this type of development provides housing; that the zoning and the large lots can still be retained while providing housing; and, that the setbacks are fair to the property owner and the neighbors. Commissioner Walker supported the motion, and indicated his appreciation for the reduction in the driveway length and the relocation of the carport. Vote on motion Motion for approval carries with the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Walker, Olszewski Dickson Stanton. ZC 89-04 PD 89-04 Saray, S. Continued public hearing to consider the revision of application of Mr. Steve Saray for approval of a Zone Change from R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) and R-l-10 (Single Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); and, approval of a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow construction of 7 townhomes on properties known as 636 & 650 Hacienda Avenue. -3- Planning Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report of April 11, 1989, noting that the applicant has submitted revised plans addressing concerns expressed by the Planning Commission; therefore, Staff is recommending approval. Discussion ensued regarding the angle of some of the parking spaces and potential back-up problems; how the parking layout might be changed if the large redwood tree in the center of the site were removed; the growth rate and root pattern of the redwood tree; the issue of the landscaping plan being addressed by the Site & Architectural Review Committee; the setbacks between the proposed single family home and the adjacent single family residence; the setback typical of this neighborhood; and, the presented increase in square footage for the single family lot. Commissioner Walker reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee's primary concern was the transition of the single family home with the rest of the neighborhood, and the applicant agreed to lower the tower element and use landscaping to further buffer the transition. Additionally, the revised plans provide a pedestrian access from Hacienda Avenue for the townhomes; and the fencing materials being changed from stucco to brick. Therefore, the Site Review Committee is recommending approval. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Greg Linafelter, 1250 Capri Drive, stated that he wanted the single family home made smaller to provide a transition; that he was glad to see the changes that were made; that most of the homes in the neighborhood have composition shingle roofs - not shake; and, that he is concerned about traffic in the neighborhood relating to the proposed configuration of the intersection at Hacienda and Capri. Engineering Manager Bill Helms indicated that street parking will probably not be allowed between the northerly driveway and the intersection - it is possible to have a single left turn and a single right turn at the intersection, and that Staff will have to monitor the situation for a while before making a decision. The applicant is required to provide standard street improvements on Capri and Hacienda to the existing street alignment. Staff is of the opinion that the existing wide-sweeping turn is no longer necessary and should be eliminated to provide for a more traditional intersection. Mr. Richard Workover, 640 Wendell Drive, opposed the development and indicated that the project is not in character with the neighborhood; that there are few two-storiy homes in the area; and, that the development does not address the neighborhood but rather faces inward - both physically and emotionally. Mr. Rick McDonald, 645 Wendell Drive, noted that the presented plan does not represent a reduction in size for the single family home; the additional square footage given to the single family lot is only 300 square feet; the bathroom window faces his house; and, the home does not fit in with the neighborhood. -4- Mr. Bruce Reid, 1509 Walnut Drive, read from the Land Use Element and the Housing Element of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and the San Tomas Study relative to recommended lower densities for the San Tomas Area, larger lot sizes to maintain the rural character. Mr. Reid indicated that the City has no obligation to allow the developer to build on the single family lot because it is a legal lot; that the proposed single family lot is one-half the average lot size in the area; and, that the proposed home will be one of the largest in the area. City Attorney William Seligmann stated that, in his opinion, the Commission would not be violating the General Plan if they approved a building on the single family lot. Mr. Piasecki noted that the applicant is requesting that the single family portion of his proposal also be rezoned and included in the calculations for the townhouse development. Mr. Steve Saray, applicant, noted that he has done his best to understand the neighborhood's concerns; that it is his intention to occupy the single family home himself; that the bathroom window is stained glass and will not affect the privacy of the neighbors; that windows overlooking neighbors in Unit 6 have been eliminated; that it is his intention to use extensive landscaping on the single family lot to mitigate transition; and, that he proposes a mixture of building materials to blend the single family home with the townhomes and the neighborhood. M/S: Kasolas, Walker - That the public hearing on ZC 89-04/PD 89-04 be closed. Motion carried 6-0-1, with Commissioner Stanton being absent. Commissioner Walker asked for background information on the San Tomas Study. M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the public hearing on ZC 89-04/PD 89-04 be re-opened. Motion carried 6-0-1, with Commissioner Stanton being absent. Commissioner Dickson explained that the San Tomas Policy is a guideline; the policy is not necessarily cast in concrete; and, guidelines from the Policy have been used a number of times by the Commission relative to alternative improvements. Commissioner Dickson continued that he did not personally feel that the City should be segregated; and, that there are a number of higher densities on Hacienda Ave. Commissioner Christ noted that, as a result of the San Tomas Policy, the Council and the Commission looked at lot sizes and a number of lots were increased to the maximum size they could be - specifically because of the Policy. The Council also tried to make as few non-conforming lots as possible. The current issue arising is due to economics. There is currently a period of residential development growth and the City is having to deal with the issues of the Policy which was adopted several years ago. Perhaps this is an opportune time to look at how to implement or change the Policy. -5- Commissioner Kasolas added that the San Tomas Policy indicates extreme sensitivity for cohesive development between lots that are existing and new development. Many of the recommended changes were adopted - some were not. Commissioner Kasolas continued that all of the homes recently approved in the San Tomas Area have been two-story; anyone in the co~unity can build a second story, up to a height of 35 feet; the City has never seen fit to limit all home to one story; and, Staff has reviewed the project and indicated that the density is appropriate. Commissioner Kasolas asked if it can be shown that the developer deviated from the rules thereby not allowing him to use his property as it is set down in the zoning ordinance; and in what way will this project be a detriment to the community? Mr. Lenafelter stated that the issue is not necessarily the two-story structure, but rather the size of the lot - the required lot size for the area is 10,000 square feet. Cox~issioner Perrine noted that the lot is non-conforming because of its size. The Zoning Ordinance says that a lot must be 6,000 square feet to be developable, and the subject lots exceeds that requirements. State and Federal law states that a person has a right to develop the lot. The issue with this development is the single family lot; the applicant could have built a small house on this lot and added a second-story and/or square footage immediately, and there would be nothing that could be done about it. With the application that is being proposed, changes can be made and concerns addressed - an attempt to blend the proposal with the neighborhood can be made. Mr. Lenafelter then stated that he is looking for a smaller house on that lot in that the proposed single family house is too large. Mr. Reid stated that the minimum lot size in the County was 8,000 square feet. The City promised to stop the encroachment on the lower densities and larger lots; therefore, the problem belongs to the developer - not the residents. M/S: Kasolas, Dickson - That the public hearing on ZC 89-04/PD 89-04 be closed. Motion carried 6-0-1, with Cox~issioner Stanton being absent. Commissioner Walker noted that the R-M-S on Hacienda Ave. will act as a noise buffer for the single family neighborhood, but expressed concern with the aesthetics of the single family home and how it ties in with the rest of the neighborhood. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared; and, that the Planning Commission adopt findings indicated in the Staff Report of April 11, 1989, and adopt Resolution Nos. 2587 & 2588 recommending that the City Council approve ZC 89-04/PD 89-04, subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report of April 11, 1989, with the final landscaping, fencing and parking plan be approved by the Planning Commission. -6- Discussion on motion Commissioner Dickson opposed the motion for the following reasons: concern with the parking arrangements cutting into the R-1 lot; excessive lot coverage for the single family home; and the two-story design being a sharp change from the adjacent single story residence. Commissioner Dickson noted that the PD zoning should be a better use for the site, and this did not appear to be the case. Commissioner Walker opposed the motion, noting that the transition from townhomes to the single family neighborhood could be better; and the single family home size is large in relation to the lot. Chairman Olszewski supported the motion, noting that the development of the R-M-S lot to a PD zoning is reasonable. The single family home is large for the lot; however, this presents a unique opportunity for the Commission to address transition from townhomes to single family neighborhood. A lot that would be vacant for years is undesireable. He felt that it was important for the landscaping/parking/fencing plans to come back to the Commission because of the retention of the existing trees and the integrity of the neighborhood. Commissioner Christ supported the motion, and agreed with comments about the size of the single family home noting that anyone in the City can build that size home on a 6,000 square foot lot. The orientation of the townhome development in toward itself is helped by the single family home; and, to orient the townhomes toward Hacienda Ave. would result in more concrete and less landscaping - the landscaping and open space is more important to this neighborhood. Commissioner Perrine supported the motion, noting for the benefit of the audience that the City does not have the opportunity to pick and choose between developments, but rather must make a determination whether a presented development will be detrimental to the community. He noted that there could be many development possibilities for this site which would be much more detrimental to the neighborhood. Vote on motion Motion carries with the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Olszewski Walker, Dickson Stanton. -7- MISCELLANEOUS Study Sessions Discussion of possible study sessions for the Planning Commission. The Commission agreed with the recommendation of the Chairman and the Planning Director to have study sessions on alternating months at the second meeting. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS There were no Subcommittee Reports at this time. REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Planning Director Steve Piasecki briefly reported on the actions of the City Council's meeting of April 4, 1989. Commissioner Christ requested that the Director add a section to the report addressing pending developments which will be agendized. Chairman Olszewski noted how valuable the recent Planning Commissioner's Institute was and thanked the City Council for providing funds to allow attendance. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. APPROVED: Bruce Olszewski Chairman ATTEST: Steve Piasecki Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary //