Loading...
PC Min - 02/14/2006 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY FEBRUARY 14, 2006 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 2006, was called to order at 7:34 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Alderete and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Bob Alderete Michael Rocha George Doorley Mark Ebner Tom Francois Elizabeth Gibbons Bob Roseberry Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Redevelopment Mgr: Recording Secretary: Sharon Fierro Jackie C. Young Lind Tim J. Haley William Seligmann Kirk Heinrichs Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission minutes of January 24, 2006, were approved as submitted. (5-0-2; Commissioners Ebner and Gibbons abstained) COMMUNICATIONS 1. Letter regarding Agenda Item No.1. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2006 Page 2 ORAL REQUESTS There were no Oral Requests. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Alderete read Agenda Item No.1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN2005-177 McTavish, R. Public Hearing to consider the appeal by Mr. Robert McTavish, on behalf of PWS Inc., of the Community Development Director's Administrative Decision (PLN2005-177) denying the establishment of a Laundromat in an existing building on property owned by Mr. Lino Martier located at 76 E. Campbell Avenue in a P- D (Planned Development/Central Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that this is an appeal of a Community Development Director decision to deny an Administrative Planned Development Permit request to establish a Laundromat at the corner of E. Campbell Avenue and S. Fourth Street. . Described the location as a 3,690 square foot multi-tenant building of which the applicant was proposing to use 2,059 or 57 percent of the space for a new Laundromat. . Said that no exterior changes were proposed. . Explained that there are 11 parking spaces at the rear of the building at a ratio of 1 space per 329 square feet. . Said that surrounding uses include office to the north, single family residences to the south, a veterinarian office to the east and a multi-tenant commercial to the west. . Stated that the General Plan Land Use designation is Central Commercial and the Zoning is P-D (Planned Development). This Zoning requires an Administrative Planned Development Permit. . Reported that the Community Development Director reviewed this request and denied this use based upon inconsistency with the General Plan and types of uses encouraged in the Downtown. The Director felt this proposed use was not consistent with either. . Added that the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan supports a pedestrian- friendly environment that consists of retail and restaurant uses. . Reminded that Laundromats are permitted uses in the C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning Districts but is not a permitted use in the C-3 (Central Business District) Zoning District. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2006 Page 3 . Advised that the applicant appealed that decision to the Planning Commission. . Pointed out that the staff report contained copies of the appeal letter as well as letters from nearby business owners. . Recommended that the Commission adopt a Resolution upholding the Community Development Director's administrative decision. Chair Alderete opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.1. Mr. Dan Sarkisian, 38 S. Fourth Street, Campbell: . Stated that he has a business in Campbell and he is currently remodeling a home that is located adjacent to this project site. . Said he is all for small businesses. . Advised that this site is faced with difficulty regarding parking for a Laundromat use and therefore will not work. · Reported that parking in the area is an issue as is. People are double parking on the street as it is. Chair Alderete asked staff to address the parking situation. Planner Tim J. Haley replied that there are 11 on-site parking spaces and limited street parking. There is some street parking available on Fourth Street but generally is not allowed on Campbell Avenue near this location. Ms. Mary Hill, Owner, Fabu Salon, 98 E. Campbell Avenue, Campbell: · Explained that her business is located in the same building as this proposed Laundromat and would use the same parking lot. . Said that she has concerns about an unattended business that could result in people hanging around this parking lot, littering and with a potential for vandalism. . Reminded that this is a small parking lot although she knows there is a big City parking structure nearby. . Said that carts usually used in Laundromats could become a problem as far as containment and possible damage to cars in this small, tightly packed parking lot. Chair Alderete asked staff if there are any documented cases of vandalism on this site. Director Sharon Fierro replied that staff did not ask Police for such a report. Mr. Michael DiGiorgio, Peninsula Fireplace, 46 E. Campbell Avenue, Campbell: . Pointed out that there is not much business for this laundry facility. . Said that this use would bring in the wrong kind of people. . Stated that he has spent a lot of money on upgrades for his business location. . Reported that there have been several incidents of vandalism including having topiaries outside his shop knocked over a few times and car damage. . Advised that he had surveillance cameras installed today. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Heath Vaught, Owner, Sis/Bro Decorative Plumbing, 32 E. Campbell Avenue: . Said that his business was established in Downtown Campbell about three years ago. . Stated that he selected Campbell because he thought that it was an up and coming community and it is. . Said that he too has taken efforts to improve their storefront. . Suggested that a Laundromat is not the right fit for this entrance into the Downtown or a good compliment to existing businesses in the area. . Said that parking is a huge issue. Mr. Robert McTavish, Applicant/Appellant, PWS, Inc.: . Said that he can appreciate the neighborhood concern. . Advised that they undergo due diligence when finding a site. . Explained that they contacted the City's Planning Office several times but ultimately were turned down by the City. . Questioned the rational for turning down a Laundromat. . Stated that when they pick a site, their decision is based on demographics. Within a one-mile radius of this location 59 percent of the people are renters. Additionally, of the population in that one-mile radius, the median income for 38 percent is $49,000 or less. . Said that this is a good site for them. . Pointed out that restaurants require more parking. . Assured that the laundry industry is different today and a location like this one includes a cost of $600,000 to the investor. . Added that the store has to be attended from open to close. . Distributed photographs that demonstrate the appearance of their stores. . Assured that they would do a lot to work with the City and be a good neighbor to surrounding businesses. Commissioner Ebner asked Mr. Robert McTavish what the projected operating hours would be. Mr. Robert McTavish replied from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Commissioner Ebner asked about the demographics and whether the radius considered is just one mile. Mr. Robert McTavish said that they consider a half-mile, one-mile and 1.5-mile radius. Commissioner Ebner: . Pointed out that most homes have laundry facilities, even if they are rented homes. . Added that the nearby Heritage Village has its own laundry facilities. . Asked for clarification as to where this business would draw its customers. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2006 Page 5 . Said that there might be more potential customers over by the Safeway but that there is already a Laundromat located there. Mr. Robert McTavish said that they drive the area when considering a site. He said that there are a lot of rental units without laundry facilities and added that average household size in this area is 3.2 people Commissioner Rocha: . Said that he had estimated a cost of $400,000 when talking to nearby neighbors. . Asked where the attendant would work in this Laundromat as it does not appear that there is an on-site office space. . Added that there appears to be a dearth of seating and asked if there is a plan for chairs for those who chose to remain on site. . Explained that he has talked to folks in this neighborhood. Mr. Robert McTavish: . Pointed out the location of water and soda machines, the bathroom and next to that the attendant station that is really just a place for storing materials and clean and folded laundry awaiting pick up. . Explained that the majority of time the attendant is on the floor helping customers. The attendant is not behind a window but on the sales floor. . Assured that the seating provided is custom and high-quality. Commissioner Gibbons asked if this location is build and sell. Mr. Robert McTavish replied that PWS is the largest builder of coin laundries in California but they sell their completed sites outright and don't sell franchises. Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that the City must depend on the buyer to maintain the standard promised here by PWS. Mr. Robert McTavish said that the buyer has to retain the standard to operate under their name. Commissioner Gibbons clarified that no signs are included in this application. Director Sharon Fierro replied correct. Mr. Robert McTavish said that they would work to match signs with the City's desires. Commissioner Roseberry said that it is clear that PWS has done its homework and laundries have changed since he last used one during college. He asked about the potential use and management of carts. Mr. Robert McTavish said that this would be a fully attended store and that the attendant makes sure that cares come back into the store. He reminded that when Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2006 Page 6 someone makes a $600,000 investment in a store, they make sure that the upkeep of that store occurs or no one would visit that location. He added that the laundry at the Safeway center is one of their competitors'. Commissioner Roseberry asked about the attendant and what that attendant does. He asked for more details on the business model addresses the functions of the attendant. Mr. Robert McTavish said that the attendant is on the sales floor at all times. The back room is simply storage of clean clothing only until the customer picks up. Commissioner Doorley asked what guarantee is there that this would operate as a fully attended store. Mr. Robert McTavish replied the investor. He reiterated that this is more than a coin laundry. Commissioner Doorley said that there really is no guarantee. Mr. Robert McTavish reminded that the investor's return is based upon an attended store. That investor has lots of money invested and they are sawy investors. Commissioner Doorley said that plenty of businesses are on a race to the bottom. He asked if PWS can assure that this high end business will be an asset for many years to come. Mr. Robert McTavish: . Said that 95 percent of the stores built today are fully attended. . Reminded that the cost to establish each location ranges between $600,000 and $1.2 million. . Assured that these investors are not "mom and pop" operators. . Said that these are bigger and better stores that compete with competitors. . Recounted that he attended a similar hearing in Santa Clara where 60 people attended. Commissioner Doorley said that the suggestion that homeowners are the target market does not ring true. Mr. Robert McTavish reiterated that there is a complete difference between an attended versus non-attended laundry. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the roof-mounted equipment required including air-conditioning and vents. Mr. Robert McTavish said that vents are the only penetration in the roof and that an evaporative cooler is also required. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2006 Page 7 Commissioner Gibbons cautioned that there is a requirement to conceal any rooftop equipment. Director Sharon Fierro announced that Redevelopment Manager Kirk Heinrichs would also like to address this request. Chair Alderete thanked Mr. Robert McTavish for answering the Commission's questions and joked that he was surprised that none of them asked any questions on dealing with tough stains. Mr. Kirk Heinrichs, Redevelopment Manager: . Reminded that he had drafted a memorandum to the Commission that was part of the staff report. . Agreed that PWS is a good company with a good formula for placing its stores. . Explained that the City and its Redevelopment Agency is trying to create a synergy in its Downtown. . Pointed out that this use could operate on Bascom or Hamilton just as well but it does not serve the Downtown. . Stressed the importance of having successful retail businesses surrounding other retail businesses in the Downtown so that people are encouraged to come here to shop and eat. . Described this proposed Laundromat as "the hole in the smile of the Downtown Area." . Pointed out that other uses incompatible to the Downtown would include a car wash. . Reminded that that is why there is Zoning. . Reiterated that there are uses that are more appropriate for other areas than the Downtown. . Reported that several uses in the Downtown were deleted during the last Zoning Code update. . Pointed out that if this parcel were not in a P-D Zoning District, it would not be here tonight on appeal because a Laundromat is prohibited outright in the C-3 Zoning District that covers the Downtown. . Said that there is nothing against a Laundromat but one is just not good for the Downtown. . Said that the Downtown is very fragile and has to compete with others such as Los Gatos and Santana Row. There is not a lot of space as this is a very small Downtown. . Stated that office and beauty salons were zoned out of first floor occupancy in the Downtown due to over-saturation and incompatibility with the goal for retail and restaurant uses. . Said that Zoning regulations are used to create an environment. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2006 Page 8 Commissioner Rocha said that he can see that the City is trying to create more foot traffic in Downtown. He said that a laundry could generate people and potential foot traffic for the Downtown. Mr. David Horton, PWS, Inc.: . Advised that prior to signing a lease on this property PWS contacted the City and was told by City staff that it was okay. Based on that information, they signed the lease. . Added that this landlord has not intention of letting PWS out of its lease. . Stated that if they had originally been told no they would have gone elsewhere. Commissioner Rocha explained that he has 20 years of experience in commercial real estate and said that most commercial leases have a void clause in the event that necessary Municipal permits cannot be obtained to establish a business in that location. Mr. David Horton said that it is unclear of such a clause is part of this lease but it has been turned over to their attorney to look into. Mr. Michael DiGiorgio: . Questioned whether patrons of a Laundromat would be likely patrons who would buy a custom mantle or bathtub. . Pointed out that there is an existing laundry on Winchester. . Reminded that this immediate area is all homes. Chair Alderete closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.1. Commissioner Doorley asked for staff input on the applicant's claim that they had originally been told this use was compatible. Director Sharon Fierro: . Advised that Project Planner Tim Haley had to leave due to transportation requirements. . Stated that the Ordinance does not specifically list Laundromats. . Said that the Redevelopment staff was not in support and she agreed with them that this is not the best use for the Downtown. . Added that if the Commission elects to approve this use for this location she would suggest a continuance to allow staff the opportunity to see the lease as there is usually a void clause available. Commissioner Francois: . Stated his agreement with the comments made earlier by Mr. Dan Sarkisian in support of small businesses as he too was a small business owner. . Said that this is not the right location for a Laundromat and it would not serve as a contributing component to the Downtown. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2006 Page 9 . Stated that locations on Hamilton or Bascom could accommodate this use but that the Gateway to Downtown was not appropriate. . Said he supports the denial of this request. Commissioner Rocha: . Thanked the applicant and said he applauds their layout and materials that creates something better than any Laundromat that he has ever seen. . Agreed with the comments of the other Commissioners. . Said that a neighbor near this site has expressed concerns to him about parking on Fourth Street. . Pointed out that Fourth Street is narrow and there is not much parking available. This use would create a nuisance factor for this neighborhood. . Said that there is potential for loitering as he has seen this at other such facilities. . Stated his support for denial of this request. Commissioner Gibbons: . Said that this is a tough one as the outcome leaves the applicant or the City between a rock and a hard place. . Stated that a Planned Development Permit goes with the property and is a long- term investment. It is set in stone and not likely to change. . Opined that the zoning information is quite clear that this is not an appropriate use to the long-term plan for the Downtown Area. Additionally, it is not allowed in the C-3. . Said she has no choice but to support the denial of this use. Commissioner Ebner said that there are lots of problems at that site to accommodate this use. There are multiple concerns. This is a good business but the wrong spot for it. Chair Alderete: . Said that he has a different point of view. . Said that the Redevelopment Manager put it very eloquently. . Stated that the Commission is not here to investigate the business plan or viability. . Agreed with Commissioner Francois that this is not an appropriate business for this location. . Said that the applicant has a great plan and that Laundromats are terrific businesses that provide service to the community. . Stated his hope that the applicant might find a location nearby but that this Gateway to the Downtown is not the right place. This is a great business but not there. . Pointed out that in the past clotheslines were not located in front yards. . Reiterated that this is not an appropriate location. . Said he too supports denial. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2006 Page 10 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3707 denying an appeal and upholding an Administrative Decision (PLN2005-177) denying the establishment of a Laundromat in an existing building on property owned by Mr. Uno Martier located at 76 E. Campbell Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Ebner, Franc;ois, Gibbons, Rocha and Roseberry None None None NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair Alderete advised that this action is final unless appeal in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: . Reported that Council took action to approve the development at Bucknall and Fulton but had concerns about the setbacks on this project. Commissioner Gibbons agreed that the result was a less beneficial project than the one originally started with including seven driveways instead of the original two. Director Sharon Fierro continued her update: . Added that Council also took action on the commercial condo project at McGlincy Avenue. . Said that the next agenda consists of two items and would adjourn to a Study Session. . Reported that the Planners Institute would occur in March and that funds were available to send on Commissioner. Chair Alderete advised that the newest Commissioner, Commissioner Ebner, would be the one to attend this Planners I nstitute this year. Planning Commission Minutes of February 14, 2006 Page 11 ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned Planning Commission Meeting of February 2 SUBMITTED BY: p.m. to the next Regular orinne A. Shinn, Recor Ing Secretary APPROVED BY: ~=1~ ~7~ Sharon Fierro, Secretary ATTEST: