Chapt 21.26 C3 District - 1988ORDINANCE NO. I ;'$2
BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CAMPBELL AMENDING CHAPTER
21.26 (C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT)
OF THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL CODE~~
The City Council of the City of Campbell does ordain as follows:
SECTION ONE: That Chapter/Section 21.26 (C3 Central Business District) of the
Campbell Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A, attached
hereto.
SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days following its
passage and adoption and shall be published once within fifteen days upon
passage and adoption in the San Jose Mercury News, a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
day of November , 19 88 , by the following
KOTOWSKI, ASHWORTH, BURR, WATSON
NOES: Councilmembers: NONE
ATTEST:
Councilmembers:
,~ID C~Tn~ECT CC'",' QF '~IIE
CN FILE Itt ~H~ O.-FiSE.
GWY OF CA:~~ ~f: L, CALl 'OF, NL&
NONE
APPROVED:
J~t~ Watson, Mayor
EXHIBIT A
C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
21.26.010
21.26 020
21.26 030
21.26 040
21.26 050
21.26 060
21.26 070
21.26 080
21.26.090
21.26.100
21.26.110
Purpose.
Uses permitted without use permit.
Uses permitted with use permit.
Uses prohibited.
Required setbacks.
Building height.
Floor area ratio.
Automobile parking.
Development review regulations.
Signs.
Nonconforming buildings and uses.
21.26.010 Purpo~3.
The Central BusineSs District Commercial zone is intended to be a
comprehensive zoning district for the downtown business area. The C3
District is specifically created to promote the following objectives in
the downtown area of Campbell:
To retain and enhance the downtown as a unique retail
environment.
To enhance the downtown as an economically viable retail and
business center serving primarily local and community commercial
needs.
To ensure the availability of adequate parking for retail and
service commercial customers and to encourage the joint
utilization of parking.
To promote ground floor retail use and to promote a mix of uses
downtown. '
To establish development intensities consistent with the scale of
the downtown area and the amount of parking which can be
accommodated within and adjacent to it.
To reinforce Campbell Ave. as a pedestrian orientated retail
street.
o
To maintain the comfortable scale, character, and diversity of a
small town business district.
To preserve and enhance significant historic buildings within the
downtown.
To improve pedestrian, visual, and vehicular connections between
downtown and adjacent areas.
-1-
-2-
10.
To insure that new building and remodeling in the downtown is of
high architectural design quality.
11. To encourage architectural diversity in the downtown.
21.26.020 Uses permitted without use permit.
The following uses are permitted without a use permit provided such
uses comply with all provisions of this chapter and are conducted entirely
within an enclosed building unless otherwise approved, in accordance with
Section 21.26.030:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22.
23
24.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32.
Antique store
Art Gallery
Bakery
Barber shop or beauty parlor
Clothes cleaning or pressing agency
Clothing or shoe store
Custom dressmaking, tailor, or millinery shop (no factory)
Department st'ore
Drug store
Dry goods or notions store
Fabric store
Florist or gift shop
Food store
Furniture, electronics, or appliance store
Grocery store
Hardware store
Hobby or crafts store
Jewelry store
Luggage or leather goods store
Meat market or delicatessen
Offices, including administrative, executive, financial, real
estate, general business, and professional, except on the ground
floor for parcels abutting E. Campbell Ay. east of Second St.
Pet shop
Photographic studio or photo processing
Plant store
Print or publishing shop
Restaurant (standard restaurant only)
Shoe repair
Sporting goods store
Travel agency
Variety/general merchandise store
Video rental store
Other uses similar to the above pursuant to Section 21.59.070.
21.26.030 Uses permitted with use permit.
The uses listed below are permitted subject to approval of a
conditional use permit as prescribed in Chapter 21.72 (Conditional Uses),
provided that such uses must be conducted wholly within an enclosed
building unless otherwise approved. Any use permit approved by the
-3-
Planning Commission in the C3 zoning district shall be referred to the
City Council for ratification. Use permits approved under the provisions
of this section shall not become effective unless and until such
ratification is given:
1. Those uses specified in Section 21.72.120, Additional Uses
Permitted
2. Arcade (containing amusement devices and games)
3. Bank or similar financial institution
4. Bookstore
5. Fast food restaurants
6. Health spa or figure salon
7. Liquor establishments (includes any business, private club, or
other activity which offers for sale any product containing
alcohol for the consumption by humans, either on or off the
premises, and for which a license or permit is required by the
State Alcoholic Beverage Control Department).
8. Night club or live entertainment
9. Offices, including administrative, executive, financial, real
estate, general business, and professional located on the ground
floor of parcels abutting E. Campbell Ay. east of Second St.
10. Record store'
11. Residential condominiums or apartments (upper floors only)
12. Parking lot or structure
13. Second hand or thrift store
14. Theatre
15. Uses conducted outside of buildings, subject to the following:
A. The outside use shall not obstruct any public right-of-way
B. The outside use shall be limited to an area specifically set
forth in the conditional use permit, and to the use set
forth therein
C. The outside use shall be designed and maintained in a manner
that is aesthetically harmonious with the surrounding
structures
D. The outside use shall be operated, designed and maintained
in a manner to prevent any obnoxious or offensive noises or
odors from being perceptible beyond the boundaries of the
property.
16. Other uses simila~ to the above pursuant to Section 21.59.070.
21.26. 040 Uses prohibited.
The following uses are prohibited in the C3 District and its
subdistricts:
Storage of industrial vehicles, except for the purpose of loading
and unloading.
The storage or warehousing of merchandise or products in the
building or on the premises for sale other than at retail on the
premises.
-4-
The outdoor storage of merchandise or products, unless otherwise
approved, in accordance with Section 21.26.030.
The assembly, compounding, manufacturing, or processing of
merchandise or products, except such as are customarily
incidental or essential to permitted retail commercial and
service uses.
Any use which is obnoxious or offensive or creates a nuisance to
the occupants or commercial visitors of adjacent buildings or
premises by reason of the emission of dust, fumes, glare, heat,
liquids, noise, odor, smoke, steam, vibrations, or similar
disturbance.
21.26.050 Required setbacks.
The following setbacks from the street property line are required in
the C3 district:
E. Campbell A%e.: None allowed, unless the City Council, upon
recommendation of the Planning Commission, finds that a setback
would better serve the public safety or welfare, and would not be
detrimental to the overall design of the area.
North and south streets intersecting with E. Campbell Ave.: None
allowed for a distance of 80 feet from E. Campbell Ave, unless
the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission,
finds that a setback would better serve the public safety or
welfare, and would not be detrimental to the overall design of
the area.
3. Civic Center and Orchard City Dr.' 10 feet, minimum.
North and south streets intersecting with Civic Center or Orchard
City Drive: 10 feet for a distance of 80 feet from Civic Center
or Orchard City Drive.
5. Elsewhere: Up to 20 feet (optional).
21.26. 060 Buildin~ height.
The maximum height in the C3 district shall be 45 feet, except that
with approval of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 21.26.030,
the maximum height shall be 75 feet.
21.26.070 Floor area ratio.
The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) in the C3 district shall be 2.0 to
1., except that with approval of a conditional use permit, pursuant to
Section 21.26.030, the maximum FAR shall be 4.0 to 1.
-5-
21.26.080 Automobile pa;king.
The provisions of Sections 21.50.010, 21.50.030, 21.50.040, and
21.50.060 of Chapter 21.50 (Parking & Loading) shall apply to the C3
district. However, the following requirements shall apply in the C3
district in lieu of Sections 21.50.020 and 21.50.050:
Parking Zone 1 and Parking Zone 2 are created as indicated on Map
1 which is incorporated within this Chapter.
2. The requirements for Parking Zone 1 are as follows:
Bo
Co
Ail new parking shall be provided in shared parking
facilities, unless the City Council, upon recommendation of
the Planning Commission, finds that another parking
arrangement would better serve the public safety or welfare,
and would not be detrimental to the overall parking and
circulation in the area.
In compu%ing the total parking requirement, credit shall be
allowed ~or existing on-site parking or for existing shared
off-site parking if an agreement, acceptable to the City,
which provides for the use and maintenance of such shared
parking is in effect.
Legally existing uses shall be required to meet the new
parking standards when there is a change in use to one which
requires more parking than is currently provided, unless the
City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning
Commission, finds that the existing parking will adequately
meet the demands generated by the change in use, and will
not be detrimental to the overall parking and circulation in
the area.
Do
The required shared facility parking ratios, based on gross
square footage of a building, unless otherwise indicated,
are as follows (parking spaces/square foot):
Retail
Off~ce
Standard
Restaurant
Bank
Residential
Service
Commercial
1:345 sq.ft. (gross)
1:425 sq.ft. (gross)
1 space per 4 seats
1:200 sq.ft. (gross)
2 per unit
1:345 sq.ft. (gross)
3. The requirements for Parking Zone 2 are as follows:
Participation in public, shared parking facilities shall be
permitted only after all Parking Zone 1 uses have been
accommodated, subject to availability of adequate sites for
parking development.
-6-
Parking requirements may be reduced by the City Council for
mixed use projects, to the extent justified, when:
Mo
Adequate shared parking is provided to compensate for
the lack of parking designated for the business; and
bo
An agreement acceptable to the City, which provides for
use and maintenance of the shared parking is entered
into.
Any adjustment made pursuant to this provision shall not
reduce the parking requirements of Zone 2 beyond the parking
requirements for Zone 1.
Legally existing uses shall be required to meet the new
parking standards when there is a change in use to one which
requires more parking than is currently provided, unless the
City Council, upon recommedation of the Planning Commission,
finds that the existing parking will adequately meet the
demands ~nerated by the change in use, and will not be
detrimental to the overall parking and circulation in the
area.
The required parking ratios based on gross square footage of
a building, unless otherwise indicated, are as follows
(parking spaces/square foot):
Retail
Office
Standard
Restaurant
Bank
Residential
Service
Commercial
1:300 sq.ft. (gross)
1:385 sq.ft. (gross)
1 space per 3 seats
1:200 sq.ft. (gross)
2 per unit
1:300 sq.ft. (gross)
21.26.090 Development'review regulations.
Downtown Development Permit. Unless otherwise specified in this
Chapter, no building, structure, or use shall be created,
maintained, established, erected, constructed, enlarged, placed,
or installed in the C3 District unless and until a Downtown
Development Permit (DDP) is issued.
o
Application: Application for a Downtown Development Permit shall
be filed with the Planning Director. All applications shall be
accompanied by a filing fee in accord with the schedule of fees
established by the City Council, no part of which is refundable.
The Planning Director shall prescribe the form of application and
data to be filed with the application. A development plan shall
be required to accompany the application. If development is to
be carried out in stages, each stage shall be shown on a master
-7-
plan of development. The plan shall indicate the site location
and planning of all open spaces and structures to show that the
development will be compatible with the General Plan of the City
and will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate
area. The plan shall include proposed buildings or structures
with elevations which show appearance and materials of exterior
walls, landscaping, walls or fences used for screening or
separation, design of ingress and egress, and off-street parking
or loading facilities.
The Planning Director may also require such other information as
it considers necessary. A development schedule indicating the
latest date on which construction of the project is to begin and
anticipated date of completion is required.
Design standards. Downtown Campbell possesses a wealth of small
scale commercial buildings that are architecturally exemplary of
the variety of historic periods in which they were constructed.
These design .standards are intended to both promote the
conservation ~nd rehabilitation of buildings and to encourage new
building and r~modeltng which is simultaneously in keeping with
existing buildings and architecturally exemplary of contemporary
design. In this way the architectural history and richness of
downtown will be continued and expanded.
Each new building and remodeling project in the downtown shall
adhere both in its large and small scale parts to the
architectural parti or style adopted for the project.
Architectural design shall be of high quality, measured against
contemporary standards.
The following sections (1) Building mass, (2) Building form and
composition, (3) Storefronts, (4) Materials, colors and finishes,
and (5) Other elements, are guidelines encouraging the relation
of specific project aspects to the designated architectural parti
or style.
Buildings and structures in the C3 District shall conform to the
following design standards:
A. Buildin~ mass.
Large building facades greater than 40 feet in length
shall be divided into smaller elements 20 to 30 feet
long, to complement the intimate scale created by the
existing small property divisions.
bo
Second floor decks or terraces at the rear of buildings
for use by adjacent offices or restaurants should be
incorporated whenever practical to add a sense of
vitality to the rear building facades.
-8-
Co
Roof design shall be consistent with the building's
architectural style. Mansard, shed, or residential
type roofs are prohibited unless it is demonstrated
that such a roof style is structurally or
architecturally suitable for the particular project or
location.
The existing residential building types of historical
significance should retain their character, including
features such as landscaped setbacks.
B. Building form and composition.
Unique and historic building elements such as parapet
details and belt courses shall be retained and
restored.
Co
Traditional commercial building forms should be
in¢grporated whenever practical.
Ope~ air dining areas facing Campbell Ave. should be
employed to the greatest extent practical. The
buildings should not be set back from the street, but
should contain the dining areas within their
architectural framework.
do
Upper stories in multi-story buildings are required to
have solid surfaces with vertical rectangular windows,
augmented with frames. Glass curtain walls should not
be approved unless it is demonstrated that such walls
are the only structurally or architecturally suitable
form of wall for the particular project or location.
Architecturally exemplary design of high quality shall
be employed. Building should not be made to look "old
time" unless such design would be clearly more
appropriate and harmonious with the purposes of this
Chapter. °
Buildings shall incorporate base, cornice, and other
elements appropriate to their architectural style.
C. Storefronts.
First floor frontages shall have an integrated design
including display windows, an entry and signing.
The design of the building storefront shall be
consistent with the building's architectural style.
Walls facing pedestrian ways should have elements of
visual interest, such as fenestration, displays,
signing or landscaping, unless the effect of such
elements would be clearly contrary to the purposes of
this Chapter. Large areas of blank walls should not be
-9-
Do
permitted unless it is demonstrated that such blank
areas are clearly more appropriate and harmonious with
the purposes of this Chapter than would be the case if
elements of visual interest were incorporated.
Buildings facing Campbell Ave. shall have their primary
entries along that street.
Entries should be recessed, as they add depth to
storefront, and act as transition areas between the
street and shop interiors, unless the effects of such
entries would be clearly contrary to the purposes of
this Chapter.
Doors and windows shall be of clear glass. Unglazed
wood doors, screen doors and doors or windows of
heavily tinted or reflective glass should not be
approved unless it is demonstrated that such doors and
wiD~ows are the only structurally or architecturally
suitable form for the particular project or location.
Storefront windows shall reflect the building's
character. For instance, on 1940's and 50's "showcase"
buildings exposed aluminum frame windows are
appropriate.
Ground floor offices facing Campbell Ave. are required
to maintain the same storefront character as retail
spaces.
Awnings on building facades should be employed when
appropriate, as they add color, weather protection and
opportunities for signing. As in other architectural
elements, the awnings should be designed to reflect the
building's geometry.
Materials, colors and finishes.
a. Primary facade materials shall be limited to those
which are characteristic of the building's
architectural style.
bo
Exterior wall finishes shall be smooth and of finished
quality, not deliberately rough in an attempt to look
antiqued or used.
Co
Primary building colors shall be characteristic of the
building's architectural style. Overly bright, garish,
or otherwise offensive colors or color combinations are
prohibited.
do
Accent materials such as tile bases shall be carefully
chosen to complement the building style and coordinate
with adjacent buildings. The use of shingles, lava
-10-
rock, sheet metal siding or any other residential or
industrial materials should not be approved unless it
is demonstrated that such material would be the only
structurally or architecturally suitable materials for
the project or location.
Painted trim shall coordinate with primary facade
colors to add more depth and interest to the buildings.
A coordinated color scheme which responds to the style
of the structure shall be developed for each building.
The colors of signing, awnings, planters, accent
materials and primary facade colors should all be
considered. The number of colors should be limited.
E. Other elements.
Trash collection and storage areas shall be carefully
screened.
Mechanical equipment shall be screened from view.
Exhaust louvers shall not be located in the storefront
areas.
Co
Colorfully landscaped planters are allowed. These are
especially appropriate below second floor windows.
Ail building maintenance shall be done conscientiously.
Action by Planning Director. The Planning Director may, upon
recommendation of the Redevelopment Director, review and decide
applications for minor additions or alterations to existing
buildings and minor changes in plans which have previously been
approved. Minor changes are limited to modifications in the site
plan and elevations that will not change the overall character of
the proposed development. The Planning Director may also approve
new uses in existing buildings when the new use is similar in
character and inter~sity to the use originally approved. However,
if the Planning Director finds that the proposed development or
use will have a substantial effect on the surrounding area, he
shall refer t~e application to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
Action by the Site & Architectural Review Committee.
The Site and Architectural Review Committee (as specified in
Section 21.42.030) shall review all development plans (except
those approved by the Planning Director as specified in Section
21.26.100(4) and make reports and recommendation on each
application to the Planning Commission.
6. Action by the Plannin~ Commission.
-11-
The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on a
Downtown Development Permit application. The hearing shall
be noticed as prescribed in Chapter 21.78, Public Hearing
Notice Procedures.
Following public hearing and within 60 days after the
acceptance of the application for a Downtown Development
Permit, the Planning Commission shall report its findings
and recommendation to the City Council by resolution, unless
the application is continued with the concurrence of the
applicant, in which case the 60-day period may be exceeded.
The Planning Commission may recommend conditions as it deems
reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to carry
out the intent of this Chapter and the General Plan. The
Planning Commission may also recommend time limits within
which the condition must be fulfilled and the proposed
development started and completed.
Action by City-'Council.
A. Upon the receipt of the report of the Planning Commission,
the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing
before the City Council. The hearing shall be noticed as
prescribed in Chapter 21.78, Public Hearing Notice
Procedures.
The City Council shall render its decision by resolution
within 30 days after the conclusion of such public hearing.
Upon a finding that the proposed development or uses is in
conformance with the provision of Title 21, the City Council
may approve the application.
In approving the application, the City Council may require
such conditions as it deems necessary and appropriate to
secure the purposes of this title and the General Plan, and
may require guarantees and evidence that such conditions are
being or will %e complied with. The City Council may impose
time limits within which the conditions must be fulfilled
and the proposed development started and completed.
Notification of decision. The Planning Director shall give
written notification of the decision to the applicant. In the
case of approval, the notification shall include all conditions
and time limits.
Right of appeal.
Any persons aggrieved by a decision of the Planning Director
or Planning Commission may appeal following the procedures
as prescribed in this Section.
-12-
Co
An appeal may be made to the Planning Commission by the
applicant or any other interested party from any
discretionary administrative decision or interpretation made
by the Planning Director or any City Official under this
Chapter. Such appeal shall be filed with the Planning
Director. Ministerial actions granting or denying a permit
under this Chapter are final and may not be appealed.
An appeal may be made to the City Council by the applicant
or any other interested party from any decision of the
Planning Commission under this Chapter. Such appeal shall
be filed with the City Clerk.
Ail appeals shall be made by filing a written notice
thereof, signed by the appellant, clearly identifying the
decision or interpretation from which the appeal has been
taken and the grounds for the appeal. The notice of appeal
must be received by the Planning Director or the City Clerk
not late~ than ten calendar days following the date of the
action from which the appeal has been taken. Any decision
not appealed within the ten-day period shall be final.
Appeals to Planning Commission.
An appeal to the Planning Commission from a
discretionary administrative decision or interpretation
shall be scheduled for hearing at the earliest regular
meeting of the Planning Commission consistent with
agenda preparation requirements and meeting schedules.
The Planning Commission shall not be required to hold a
public hearing, however nothing herein shall prevent
the Planning Commission~ in its discretion, from
receiving testimony or other evidence from any persons
pertaining to the subject of appeal.
The Planning Commission may affirm, reverse, or modify
the administrative decision or interpretation, and may
refer thW matter back to the Planning Director or other
City Official for such further action as may be
directed by the Planning Commission. The Commission
shall make such findings as may be required to support
its decision.
Appeals to City Council.
mo
An appeal to the City Council from a decision of the
Planning Commission shall be scheduled for hearing at
the earliest regular meeting of the City Council
consistent with agenda preparation requirements and
meeting schedules. The City Council shall not be
required to conduct a noticed public hearing unless
-13-
10.
11.
the action by the Planning Commission was taken in
connection with a proceeding which required public
hearing; provided, however, that nothing herein shall
prevent the City Council, in its discretion from
receiving testimony or other evidence from any person
pertaining to the subject matter of appeal.
bo
The City Council may affirm, reverse or modify the
decision of the Planning Commission, and may refer the
matter back to the Planning Commission for such further
action as may be directed by the City Council. The
City Council shall make such findings as may be
required to support its decision.
Development schedule expiration and revision. A development
schedule indicating the latest date on which construction of the
project is to begin and the anticipated date of completion shall
be approved with the project. A development schedule may be
extended or.~einstated by the City Council upon receipt of a
written request which includes a new development schedule.
All applications for an extension or a reinstatement of a
development schedule shall be accompanied by a filing fee in
accord with the schedule of fees established by the City Council,
no part of which is refundable.
Modification of approval. Unless approved under Section
21.26.090 (4), all application for modification to approved
Downtown Development Permits (such as a change in use or
conditions, or a modification to the plans) must be approved by
the City Council, by resolution, upon recommendation of the
Planning Commission. All applications for modifications must be
accompanied by a filing fee in accord with the schedule of fees
established by the City Council, no part of which is refundable.
12. Permits not to be issued if nonconformance exists. No Downtown
13.
Development Permit, building permit, business license, or any
other type of permit shall be issued for any use in a C3 District
where such use does not conform to the development plan as
approved by the City Council, except as provided for in Chapter
21.64 (Nonconforming Buildings) and Chapter 21.66 (Nonconforming
Uses.)
Inspection by Plannin~ Director. From time to time the Planning
Director shall compare the actual development accomplished in the
various C3 Districts with the approved development schedule, and
shall report his findings to the City Council.
-14-
14. Revocation.
The Planning Director may issue a notice of noncompliance
for any failure to comply with any condition of a downtown
development permit, deviation from approved plans, or for
failure to comply with any state law or local ordinance, or
if the use creates a nuisance. If the noncompliance or
nuisance is not abated, corrected, or rectified within the
time specified in said notice, the Planning Director shall
set a date for public hearing before the Planning
Commission. The public hearing shall be noticed as
prescribed in Chapter 21.78, Public Hearing Notice
Procedures.
Following public hearing, the Planning Commission shall
report its findings and recommendations to the City Council
by resolution. The Planning Commission may recommend
revocation, suspension, or modification of a downtown
develop~$nt permit upon finding that:
a. A violation of one or more conditions of the Downtown
Development Permit exists and was not abated,
corrected, or rectified within the time specified on
the notice of noncompliance; or
bo
A violation of any ordinance or state law exists and
was not abated, corrected, or rectified within the time
specified on the notice of noncompliance; or
c. The use as presently conducted creates a nuisance.
Co
Upon receipt of the report of the Planning Commission, the
City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing before
the City Council. The hearing shall be noticed as
prescribed in Chapter 21.78, Public Hearing Notice
Procedures. Following public hearing and after
consideration of the Planning Commission report, the City
Council shall'render its decision by resolution. The City
Council may revoke, suspend, or modify a downtown
development permit upon finding that:
ac
A violation of one or more conditions of the downtown
development permit exists and was not abated, corrected
or rectified within the time specified on the notice of
noncompliance; or
bo
A violation of any ordinance or state law exists and
was not abated, corrected, or rectified within the time
specified on the notice of noncompliance; or
c. The use as presently conducted creates a nuisance.
-15-
21.26.100 Signs.
Signs may be erected in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
21.53 (Signs), except that the following standards shall supercede those
listed under Section 21.53.090:
Intent: The intent of these regulations is to stimulate
creative, good quality signing which will complement the
intimate scale and architectural character of the area, and
which will complement the architectural style of the
building to which the signing is fixed.
Allowable signs: Each business shall be allowed one square
foot of sign area for each one linear foot of business
frontage. A minimum of 20 square feet is allowed and a
maximum of 40 square feet allowed for each business.
Sign materials: Appropriate sign materials include enameled
metal, neon tubing, painted wood, cast metal, painted fabric
and similar materials. Plastic signs should not be approved
unless it is demonstrated that the use of such plastic signs
at the proposed location would be more harmonious with the
purpose of this Chapter than the foregoing enumerated
materials.
Wall signs: Each business may have one wall sign, except
corner businesses which may have two. This sign shall be
located below the top of parapet on single story buildings
and below the second floor sill on multi-storied buildings.
It may be painted directly on a wall, a sign panel attached
to a parapet wall, or of individually formed letters
attached to a wall.
Awnings: Awnings may be used in lieu of wall signs. An
insignia or name may be painted, silk screened or appliqued
onto the awning. Awnings may project 5 feet into the public
right-of-way on Campbell Ave. and must maintain a minimum
clearance of ~ feet from the ground. Ail other streets
shall be limited to a 2-foot projection and have a minimum
clearanc~ of 8 feet. Awnings must be securely attached to
building and well maintained. No supports or poles may be
located in the public right-of-way. Awnin~ forms must be
carefully chosen to complement the architectural style of
the building to which they are fixed.
6. ProjectinK siKns:
In lieu of a wall sign or awning sign, a business is
allowed one projecting sign. The projecting sign may
serve to identify more than one tenant in the
building. If the projecting sign is double-faced, its
area must be calculated for each side of the sign,
-16-
and the total area must fall within the total allowable
sign area for the business. Signs fronting E. Campbell
Ave. may project 4 feet over the public right-of-way
with a minimum 8 foot clearance from the ground. Signs
fronting the side streets and loop streets may project
2 feet into the public right-of-way and have a minimum
10 foot clearance above the ground.
bo
Banners may be used as an alternate type of projecting
sign, if consistent with the architectural style of the
building to which they are fixed. Only fabric banners
may be used. The image may be painted, silk screened
or appliqued onto the fabric. Each side must be
calculated into the total allowable sign area. All
banners must be well maintained and of professional
quality.
Window graphics: In addition to other allowed signing, each
business may have one window graphics display. Letters
shall b~.gold, white or other light colors. The signing
must constitute 20 percent or less of a businesses' window
area.
Lighting: Only external illumination of signs is allowed
except for neon or individual letter signs.
Design: All signs are required to be designed by a
professional architect, graphic designer, or designer
working for a sign company, or other design professional.
21.26.110 Nonconformin~ buildings and uses.
Nonconforming buildings and uses shall be governed by the standards
set forth in Chapter 21.64 (Nonconforming Buildings) and Chapter 21.66
(Nonconforming Uses).
CITY OF CAMPBELL
COUNCIL REPORT
Meeting Date:
Category:
Initiating Dept:
Title:
November 15, 1988
Item #
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
Planning
Public Hearing - Introduction of Ordinances (3) - Campbell
Downtown Area:
a)
b)
c)
TA 88-04 - City-initiated Text Amendment to Chapter 21.26
(C3 Central Business District) to provide development and
use regulations for the Downtown Area.
GP 88-02 - City-initiated General Plan Amendment to the Land
Use Element of the General Plan - land use policies in the
downtown area.
ZC 88-04 - City-initiated Zone Change from Interim (PD -
Planned Development) to C3 (Central Business District) -
properties located within Civic Center Drive and Orchard
City Drive (Downtown Core Area).
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
1. That the City Council accept the Negative Declarations which have been
prepared for these amendments.
That the City Council adopt the attached findings and take first reading of
the attached ordinances:
(1) amending Chapter 21.26 (C3 Central Business District);
(2) amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan to provide for
land use policies in the downtown area; and
(3) changing the zoning from Interim (PD - Planned Development) to C3
(Central Business District) for properties located within Civic
Center Drive and Orchard City Drive.
DISCUSSION OF TA 88-04
In January of this year the City Council adopted the Campbell Downtown
Development Plan which set policy for the redevelopment of downtown Campbell.
A first step in the implementation of the plan is the adoption of specific
zoning regulations for the downtown. In April of 1988 the Redevelopment Agency
Board reviewed draft zoning regulations for the downtown as prepared by Staff,
and the Board directed the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on the
proposed regulations. The first public hearing was held in May and it was
continued several times in order that the proposed regulations could be further
revised and in order that the newly hired Redevelopment Director could offer
his input. Attached for the Council's review is a copy of the proposed
Ordinance and C3 regulations (Exhibit 1). Outlined below are the major areas
of significance:
Staff used the former C3 (Central Business District) regulations and
rewrote this chapter so as to apply to the present downtown. This chapter
contains specific use, development, design, parking, and signing standards
that only will apply to the downtown area.
TA 88-04/GP 88-02/ZC 88-04 -2- November 15, 1988
The entire downtown core is currently zoned Interim, which requires
recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval of an ordinance by
the Council for all developments. The Council may note that the zoning
downtown has been PD (Planned Development); however, it was changed to
Interim last year in order to provide for more control over development
while the Downtown Development Plan was being studied. With the C3
ordinance, the review process would be the same except that the Council
would be approving a Downtown Development Permit (DDP) by resolution as
opposed to a Planned Development Permit by ordinance.
The standards in the proposed ordinance were taken as directly as possible
from the adopted Downtown Development Plan. Some modifications were
required, however, in order to convert a policy document into a regulatory
ordinance.
In the original draft of the regulations, retail only uses were required in
certain portions of the downtown. These regulations have since been
revised to allow a wider variety of uses in all areas of the downtown,
similar to the uses allowed in the other commercial districts. This change
was made because the establishment of overly restrictive use regulations,
at this time, will hinder the ability of the downtown to attract tenants.
In order to provide some control over the number of offices and banks on
ground floors facing E. Campbell Av. east of Second St., a use permit
requirement is included.
The required setbacks, height, floor area ratios, and parking standards
were taken from the adopted Downtown Development Plan. A use permit
provision was added to the height and floor area ratios section to allow
for consideration to exceed the standards. It should be noted that the
parking standards are substantially less restrictive than those for other
parts of the City. Staff changed the restaurant parking standard from one
based on square footage of the building to one based on the number of seats
(similar to the current ordinance) because this will be a better
representation of intensity.
Specific design standards are provided for the downtown area. This is the
first area in the City where such standards have been used. The standards
were taken from the Downtown Development Plan and have since been reviewed
by an architectural design firmwith substantial commaexcial design
expertise. A number of minor changes were recommended to clarify the
regulations, and these were incorporated into the proposed regulations.
The downtown will also have signing standards different from the rest of
the City. These standards were taken from the Downtown Development Plan
and have recently been reviewed by the architectural design firm. They
have recommended some minor changes which have been incorporated into the
proposed regulations.
The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed regulations and recommended
some minor rewording in order to legally strengthen it. These changes have
been incorporated into the draft.
Changes pertaining to setbacks and design standards were suggested by the
Planning Commission at its meeting of October 25, 1988, and these changes have
been incorporated into the draft presented with this report.
TA 88-04/GP 88-02/ZC 88-04 -3- November 15, 1988
DISCUSSION OF GP 88-02
As the Council is aware, the Redevelopment Agency recently adopted the Campbell
Downtown Development Plan which includes specific recommendations regarding
land uses and design standards downtown. The adoption of this plan
necessitates amendment to the City's General Plan in order to provide
consistency. The attached Exhibit 2 indicates the proposed changes to the Land
Use Element of the General Plan. As can be seen, the proposed changes are
intended to make specific reference to the downtown area and to incorporate the
Downtown Plan by reference.
DISCUSSION OF ZC 88-04
This item is also directly related to the text amendment (TA 88-04) and would
actually change the zoning on the properties, as indicated in Exhibit 3, from
Interim Zoning District to C3 (Central Business District). It should be noted
that the subject area is normally zoned PD (Planned Development); however, the
COuncil established an Interim Zoning District in this area last year.
Therefore, approval of this zone change would be from Interim to C3.
The Commission recommended approval of TA 88-04 (vote: 6-1, with Commissioner
Kasolas voting "no"), as well as approval of GP 88-02 and ZC 88-04 (vote:
5-0-2, with Commissioners Kasolas and Dickson being absent). The minutes from
the Planning Commission meeting of October 25 are attached hereto for the
Council's review.
All downtown business and property owners have been notified regarding this
item.
Attachments
2.
3.
4.
5.
Recommended Findings.
Exhibit 1 - Ordinance, with attachment, for TA 88-04.
Exhibit 2 - Ordinance, with attachment, for GP 88-02.
Exhibit 3 - Ordinance, with attachment, for ZC 88-04.
Planning Commission minutes of 10/25/88 for TA 88-04/GP 88-02/ZC
88-04.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: GP 88-02
CHAPTER 21.26 (C3 DISTRICT)
CC MTG: 11-15-88 .'
The Downtown core is a unique area which requires specific goals and
objectives to facilitate revitalization.
In January 1988 the Redevelopment Agency adopted a Downtown Development
Plan. The amendment to the General Plan is necessary in order to make
reference to the adopted specific plan and in order to provide consistency
between the two.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: TA 88-04 & ZC 88-04
The proposed zoning will be consistent with the Land Use Element of the
General Plan for the Downtown area and the Campbell Downtown Development
Plan.
2. The proposed zoning will be compatible with the surrounding zonings and
land uses.
Be
The proposed zoning will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements
in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.
4. The C3 (Central Business District) zoning will serve to implement the
Downtown Development Plan for the revitalization of the area.
RESOLUTION NO. 2562
PLANNING COMMISSION
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL
CODE, CHAPTER 21.26. (C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT)
TA 88-04
AFter notification and public hearing as specified by law on proposed
amendments to the text of the Campbell Municipal Code, and after presentation
by the Planning Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, and based upon the following
findings, the Commission did determine that there was a significant need to
amend Chapter 21.26 (C3 Central Business District) of the Campbell Municipal
Code to provide development and use regulations for the downtown area.
The C3 Zoning District will be consistent with the General Plan and
the adopted Downtown Development Plan.
Specific zoning regulations for downtown are needed in order to
implement the Downtown Development Plan.
The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the
attached Ordinance enacting the necessary legislation to make the proposed text
amendment effective.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October 1988 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker,
Dickson, Christ
Kasolas
None
ATTEST:
Arthur A. Kee
Secretary
APPROVED:
Ronald W. Christ
Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 25, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS
TA 88-04
City-initiated
Continued public hearing to consider a
City-initiated amendment to Chapter 21.26 (C3
Central Business District) of the Campbell
Municipal Code to provide development and use
regulations for the downtown area.
Mr. Marty Woodworth, Redevelopment Manager, reviewed the Staff Report of
October 25, 1988, noting that a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this
proposal. Additionally, the City Attorney has proposed some revisions to the
draft and these should be incorporated into the text before it goes to the City
Council.
Discussion ensued regarding the various types of uses allowable in the downtown
area.
Commissioner Kasolas expressed concern with making a list of allowable uses,
noting that there appears to be too many "nos" and more red tape.
Commissioner Perrine asked about provisions for outdoor dining; type of
allowable roof designs; allowing cast bronze or iron metals for signage;
clarification on banners; and acceptable signing designers.
Chairman Christ noted that his major concern was regarding setbacks - with the
proposed lack of setbacks, an alley-like corridor is being created which will
not provide for opportunities for light and shadow or interesting nooks.
Commissioner Olszewski felt that a statement is needed in the text to encourage
architectural diversity to encourage pedestrian use.
Commissioner Walker felt that the district provides for the retention of
historic buildings which insures architectural diversity.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Mr. Jim Lyle, Pacific Design Group, agreed very strongly about diversity of
architectural styles. Mr. Lyle continued that he felt that mansard roof should
be not disallowed, but that the choice should be left open to avoid design
boredom.
Commissioner Olszewski agreed with Mr. Lyle, however he felt that the proposed
text amendment was the way in which to proceed.
Mr. Woodworth answered the Cox~ission's questions, and noted that the
regulations are intended as guidelines only. Staff feels that there are a
number of things which give the Commission and City Council the necessary
flexibility.
Chairman Christ felt that a change of wording (ie. using discourage or
encourage) would accomplish to intent of the ordinance, but seem less
restrictive to a developer.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 25, 1988
PAGE 2.
Commissioner Perrine recommended that the text be changed to say that "mansard
roof are not encouraged, unless..."; and, (Pg. 9) that stained glass be allowed
as well.
M/S: Perrine, Dickson -
That the public hearing on TA 88-04 be
closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0).
M/S:
Perrine, Walker
That the Planning Commission recommend that
the City Council accept the Negative
Declaration which has been prepared for this
project; and, that the Planning Commission
adopt Resolution No. 2562, including the
findings as indicated in the Staff Report of
October 25, 1988, and the revisions as
recommended by the City Attorney in
memorandum of October 24, 1988, recommending
that the City Council approve TA 88-04.
Discussion on motion
Commissioner Kasolas stated that would be in favor of changing the PD (Planned
Development) Zoning to C3 by resolution - not by ordinance. However, he
thought that many of the provisions in the amendment were too restrictive and
would tend to discourage development; and, he expressed great difficulty in
trying to legislate architectural expression.
Vote on motion
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker,
Dickson, Christ
Kasolas
None.
RESOLUTION NO. 2563
PLANNING COMMISSION
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOHMENI)ING AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADDRESS
LAND USE POLICIES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA
(CITY-INITIATED APPLICATION, GP 88-02.)
After notification and public hearing as specified by law on proposed
amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, to address land
use policies in the downtown area; and, after presentation by the Planning
Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission
does find as follows:
1. The Downtown core is a unique area which requires specific goals
and objectives to facilitate revitalization.
In'January 1988 the Redevelopment Agency adopted a Downtown
Development Plan. The amendment to the General Plan is necessary
in order to make reference to the adopted specific plan and in
order to provide consistency between the two.
The Planning Commission does hereby adopt a Resolution recommending that
the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance making effective the
proposed amendment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October 1988 by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker, Christ
None
Kasolas, Dickson
ATTEST:
Arthur A. Kee
Secretary
APPROVED:
Ronald W. Christ
Chairman
pLANNING COMMISSION MELTING
OCTOBER 25, 1988
GP 88-02
City-initiated
Continued public hearing to consider a
General Plan Amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan addressing land
use policies in the downtown area.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of October 25, 1988,
noting that Staff is recommending approval of this amendment.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S: Stanton, Walker -
That the public hearing on GP 88-02 be
closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2).
M/S: Perrine, Olszewski -
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
That the Planning Commission recommend that
the City Council accept the Negative
Declaration which has been prepared for this
item; and, that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 2563, incorporating findings
as indicated in the Staff Report of October
25, 1988, recommending that the City Council
approve GP 88-02. Motion carried with the
following roll call vote:
Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker, Christ
None
Kasolas, Dickson.
RESOLUTION NO. 2564
PLANNING COMMISSION
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT)
TO C3 (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT) FOR PROPERTIES
LOCATED WITHIN CIVIC CENTER DRIVE AND ORCHARD CITY
DRIVE (DOWNTOWN CORE AREA) AS SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED
EXHIBIT (CITY-INITIATED APPLICATION; ZC 88-04).
After notification and public hearing as specified by law on the proposed
-men~lments to the Zoning Map of the City of Campbell, and after presentation by
the Planning Director, proponents and opponents, the Planning Commission did
determine that the change as shown in the attached Exhibit A should be ~de to
the Zoning Map based on the following findings:
1. The proposed zoning will be consistent with the Land Use Element of the
General Plan for the Downto~ area and the Campbell Downtow~ Development
plan.
2. ~"ne proposed zoning will be compatible with the surrounding zonings and
land uses.
The proposed zoning will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvaments
in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.
The C3 (Central Business District) zoning will serve to implement the
Do, town Development Plan for the revitalization of the area.
The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell recommends that the City
Co%mcil enact the Ordinance attached hereto making effective the recommended
changes to the Zoning Map.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October 1988 by the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Co~issioners:
Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker, Christ
None
Kasolas, Dickson
ATTEST:
Arthur A. Kee
Secretary
APPROVED:
Ronald W. Christ
Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION ME~'£ING
OCTOBER 25, 1988
ZC 88-04
City-initiated
Continued public hearing to consider the
City-initiated zone change from PD (Planned
Development) to C3 (Central Business
District) for properties located within Civic
Center Dr. and Orchard City Dr. (Downtown
Core Area).
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of October 25, 1988,
noting that Staff is recommending approval of this zone change.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
. M/S:
Stanton, Walker -
M/S: Perrine, Olszewski -
That the public hearing on ZC 88-04 be
closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2).
That the Planning Commission recommend that
the City Council accept the Negative
Declaration which has been prepared for this
item; and, that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 2564, incorporating findings
as indicated in the Staff Report of October
25, 1988, recommending that the City Council
approve ZC 88-04. Motion carried with the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker, Christ
None
Kasolas, Dickson.
ITEM NO. 3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 1988
TA 88-04
City-initiated
Continued public hearing to consider a
City-initiated text amendment to Chapter 21.26 (C3
Central Business District) of the Campbell
Municipal Code to provide development and use
regulations for the downtown area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Planning Commission adopt a RESOLUTION, including the attached
findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE the amended C3
District regulations as indicated in Exhibit A.
STAFF DISCUSSION
This item was continued from the meeting of July 26, 1988 in order that the
regulations could be further reviewed, particularly by the Redevelopment
Director. At this time a revised draft has been prepared as described below.
In January of this year the City Council adopted the Campbell Downtown
Development Plan which sets policy for the redevelopment of downtown Campbell.
Since that time, the Planning Staff has been directed to develop specific
zoning regulations for the downtown core in order to implement the adopted
plan.
Staff used the former C3 District (Central Business District) and rewrote this
chapter for the downtown area. On April 5, ~988, the Redevelopment Agency
reviewed the draft and directed the Planning Commission to hold a public
hearing on the proposed C3 District.
Attached for the Commission's review is a revised draft of the C3 zoning
district regulations. Outlined below are the major areas of significance'
1. Currently, the entire downtown core is zoned PD (Planned Development),
which requires recommendation by the Commission and approval of an
ordinance by the Council for all developments. With the C3 ordinance,
the review process would be the same except approval by the City
Council would be by resolution instead of ordinance.
2. The standards in the proposed ordinance were taken as directly as
possible from the adopted Downtown Development Plan. Some
modifications were required, however, in order to convert a policy
document into a regulatory ordinance.
TA 88-04 -2- October 25, 1988
In the previous draft of the regulations, retail only uses were
required in certain portions o~ the Howntown. T~ r~gulation~ hav~
since been revised to allow a wider variety of uses in all areas of
the downtown, similar to the uses allowed in the other commercial
districts. This change was made because the establishment of overly
restrictive use regulations, at this time, will hinder the ability of
the downtown to attract tenants. In order to provide some control
over the number of offices and banks on ground floors facing E.
Campbell Ay. east of Second St., a use permit requirement is included.
The required setbacks, height, floor area ratios, and parking
standards were taken from the adopted Downtown Development Plan. A
use permit provision was added to the height and floor area ratios
section to allow for consideration to exceed the standards. It should
be noted that the parking standards are substantially less restrictive
than those for other parts of the City. Staff changed the restaurant
parking standard from one based on square footage of the building to
one based on the number of seats (similar to current ordinance)
because this will be a better representation of intensity.
Specific design standards are provided for the downtown area. This is
the first area in the City where such standards have been used. The
standards were taken from the Downtown Development Plan and have since
been reviewed by an architectural design firm with substantial
commercial design expertise. A number of minor changes were
recommended to clarify the regulations, and these were incorporated
into the proposed regulations. ~
The downtown will also have signing standards different from the rest
of the City. These standards were taken from the Downtown Development
Plan and have recently been reviewed by the architectural design firm.
They have recommended some minor changes which have been incorporated
into the proposed regulations. Staff has also revised the standards
to allow either a wall or projecting sign for a business, but not
both.
o
Chapter 21.66 (Nonconforming Uses) and Chapter 21.64 (Nonconforming
Buildings) are incorporated by reference into the regulations.
Previously, with the more restrictive uses, new nonconforming use
regulations were developed. These are no longer necessary.
Staff is recommending that the Commission review the regulations and recommend
that the City Council approve the amended C3 district.
This item was renoticed in the newspaper and letters sent to all property and
business owners in the downtown area.
f:TA88-04
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: TA 88-04
CHAPTER 21.26 (C3 DISTRICT)
PC MTG: 10-25-88
o
The C3 District will be consistent with the General Plan and the adopted
Downtown Development Plan.
Specific zoning regulations for downtown are needed in order to implement
the Downtown Development Plan.
ITEM #3
TA 88-04
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Redevelopment agency
From: City Attorney William Seligmann
Date: October 24, 1988
Re: Prol~osed Revisions to C-3 Regulations
Background
The Planning Commission has been presented with draft
regulations to govern a new C-3 zoning district. Upon review of
these provisions, I would suggest a few minor revisions.
Discussion
A. Section 21.26.080
Section 21.26.080 sets forth the parking standards
which would govern the C-3 district. Subsections 2 and 3,
purport to allow deviations from these standards, but fail to set
forth the criteria for granting the deviations. Consequently, it
is recommended that those subsections be amended along the lines
set forth in the conclusion of this memorandum.
B. Section 21.26.080
It is also recommended that the word "maintained" be
added in subsection 1 of section 21.26.090. This addition would
clarify that the adoption of this ordinance is not intended to
legalize developments which were illegally constructed under the
PD regulations.
Conclusion
1. Section 21.26.0802.A. should be amended to read as
follows:
A. Ail new parking shall be provided in shared parking
facilities, unless the City Council, upon recommendation of the
Planning Commission, finds that another parking arrangement would
better serve the public safety or welfare, and would not be
detrimental to the overall parking and circulation in the area.
2. Section 21.26.080.2.C. should be amended to read as
follows:
Memorandum
To: Planning Commission, Redevelopment agency
Re: Proposed Revisions to C-3 Regulations
Page two
October 24, 1988
C~. Legally existing uses shall be required to meet
the new parking standards when there is a change in use to one
which requires more parking then is currently provided, unless
the City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission,
finds that the existing parking will adequately meet the demands
generated by the change in use, and will not be detrimental to
the overall parking and circulation in the area.
follows:
3. Section 21.26.080.3.C. should be amended to read as
C. Legally existing uses shall be required to meet the
new parking standards when there is a change in use to one which
requires more parking than is currently provided, unless the
City Council, upon recommendation of the Planning Com,mission,
finds that the existing parking will adequately meet the demands
generated by the change in use, and will not be detrimental to
the overall parking and circulation in the area.
follows:
4. Section 21.26.090.1 should be amended to read as
D. Downtown Development Permit. Unless otherwise
specified in this Chapter, no building, structure, or use shall
be created maintained, established, erected, constructed,
enlarged, placed, or installed in the C3 District unless and
until a Downtown Development Permit (DDP) is issued.
MEMORANDUM
From:
To: Arthur Kee Date:
Planning Director
Robert Kass ~~-'~
Redevelopment Director
CITY OF CAMPBELL
October 18, 1988
Revised C3 (Central Business District) Zoning Regulations
Subject:
Amendment to the C3 (Central Business District) zoning regulations will be
reconsidered by the Planning Commission on October 25, 1988. The original
revisions were continued from the July 26, 1988 Planning Commission meeting to
provide time for additional Staff review. Revisions to the C3 regulations are
expected to play an important part in downtown revitalization and
implementation of the Downtown Development Plan.
Agency Staff has completed its review of the proposed C3 regulations, and has
prepared revisions. These are attached for your review, along with a draft of
the Staff Report for the Planning Commission.
A summary of the most recent revisions is outlined below:
1. In the previous draft, retail only type uses were required in certain parts
of the downtown. The regulations have since been rewritten to allow a greater
variety of uses downtown, similar to the uses allowed by other commercial
districts. This change was made because the establishment of overly restrictive
use regulations, at this time, will hinder the ability of the downtown to
attract tenants. Similar to other commercial districts, a section is provided
allowing uses as a matter of right, and another section allows uses subject to
approval of a conditional use permit. Staff was selective in the types of uses
allowed. For example, automotive repair type uses are not allowed in any case.
Also, offices and banks were made conditional uses when located on the ground
floor facing E. Campbell Ay. east of Second St. This was done to give more
control over these types of uses in an area where retail type uses will be
encouraged.
2. The downtown design standards and the signing standards were reviewed by an
architectural design firm with substantial commercial design expertise. A
number of minor changes were recommended to clarify the regulations, and were
incorporated into the proposed regulations. In addition, Staff changed one
section of the signing standards in order to allow either a wall or projecting
sign for a business, but not both.
3. Chapter 21.66 (Nonconforming Uses) and Chapter 21.64 (Nonconforming
Buildings) have been incorporated into the C3 district by reference.
Previously, new nonconforming use regulations were included in order to address
the retail only provisions, however, these are no longer needed.
Arthur Kee
Revised C3 Zoning Regulations
October 18, 1988
Page 2
4. The City Council has replaced the Redevelopment Agency as the decision
making body. This was done on the advice of legal counsel.
5. A use permit provision has been added to the building height and floor area
ratio sections in order to allow consideration for exceeding the basic
standards.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on the regulations.
cc: Kevin Duggan
Don Wimberly
Bill Seligmann
f: TA88-04
MEETING NOTICE
You are invited to attend an informal meeting on the
status of downtown redevelopment.
WHEN
Wednesday, October 26, 1988
7:30 p.m.
WHERE
Council Chambers
City Hall
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Come meet the new Redevelopment Agency Staff and find
out what's in the works for downtown Campbell.
If you have questions, please feel free to call Marty
Woodworth, Redevelopment Manager, at 866-2110.
CITY OF AMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department:
Planning
October 11, 1988
Dear Property Owner or Business Owner:
Several months ago the City of Campbell noticed the public hearing to
consider adopting revised zoning regulations for the downtown area as
indicated on the attached map. This hearing was continued in order that
the proposed regulations could be studied in greater detail. The proposed
regulations have since been revised and they are scheduled for public
hearing before the Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 25, 1988 at
7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, in the City Hall Council Chambers at
70 N. First St., Campbell.
The proposed regulations include standards for uses, parking, setbacks,
building height, floor area, signs, and design of buildings downtown. The
proposed regulations have been somewhat revised since the original public
hearing, particularly with respect to the use restrictions for businesses
allowed downtown.
The environmental review indicated that the proposed regulations will not
have a significant effect on the environment, consequently a Negative
Declaration has been prepared. Supporting documentation is on file in the
Planning Department Office, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California.
Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be
advised that if you challenge the nature of the above project in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised
at the public hearing described in this Notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Campbell Planning Commission at,
or prior to, the public hearing. Questions may be addressed to Marty
Woodworth at (408)866-2110. File # ZC 88-04, TA 88-04.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL
ARTHUR A. KEE
SECRETARY
,ce Architects
September 1, 1988
Mr. Robert Kass
Redevelopment Director
Campbell Redevelopment Agency
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
FEDERAL EXPRESS
Dear Bob:
I have completed a review of the Campbell Downtown
Development Plan (draft 11/6/87), as well as the City staff
report to the Planning Commission regarding proposed changes
in the C-3 zoning. My review has focused on building design
issues, as we discussed.
While the staff report does not directly treat many of the urban
design matters raised in the Development Plan, these obviously
bear upon building design in downtown. I would like to discuss
the urban design recommendations with you in the near future.
For now, though, I will limit my comments to the proposed
building design standards.
The architectural strength of the downtown lies in its
diversity. Unlike Santa Barbara or the French Quarter in New
Orleans, there is no one predominant architectural style
towards which new building or remodeling ought to aspire, or
which might constitute the formal basis of design controls. In
Imy opinion with downtown Campbell the paradoxical question
is how to provide standards for diversity.
Hieroglyph Building
5237 College Avenue
Oakland, Ca. 94618
Tel. (415) 658-2543
RECEIVED
SEP 2 1988
CAMPIgELL
REDE¥£LOPi~/~tll AGENCy
Robert Kass
Page two
The best buildings in the downtown are those that are
stylistically characteristic of the era in which they were built.
Attached are photographs of a variety of architecturally
noteworthy buildings on Campbell Avenue. Note that each
embodies a different and distinct architectural style, from
neo-Classical, to Spanish, to Beaux Arts, to International Style
Modernism, to, literally, Ranch.
The design guidelines for downtown ought, I believe, to reflect
and build upon the architectural strengths of this existing
diversity.
A critique of the proposed changes to the C-3 zoning might
begin with the observation that all of the buildings highlighted
on the attached photographs, historic and less so, would be
prohibited under the new design guidelines. These guidelines
mainly treat planning issues (setbacks, location of entrances,
etc.) and individual building elements (materials, roof types,
colors, etc.). None of the guidelines address matters of
architectural style, with the exception of 21.26.100 C. 2. (f)
"Simple timeless design should be employed wherever
practical..."
Too, the guidelines are almost exclusively concerned with
standards that may tend to homogenize the architectural
appearance of downtown, rather than build on its existing
heterogeneous qualities. This tendency is reflected especially
in sections which limit building materials to brick and stucco,
and which limit building colors to "light neutral tones."
Robert Kass
Page three
While questions of materials and colors are critical concerns in
buildings, and are the proper objects of design guidelines and
review, I believe the proposed changes might be modified
somewhat to encourage the downtown's strengths. One of the
purposes of the proposed changes is (21.26.010 G)"To maintain
the comfortable scale and character of a small town business
district." This purpose is very largely met, from a building
design standpoint, in sections 21.26.060, .070, and .080, which
insure properly sited, modestly sized structures. This purpose
is also met with the majority of the proposed design
guidelines, which ought to be left intact.
What, then, are we proposing? In my view the design guidelines
ought to be modified to encourage buildings like the best of the
existing buildings in downtown - stylistically characteristic of
diverse eras. Our current era is rich with architectural
possibilities, ranging from neo- to post-Modernism, with a
large number of stops in between. To make the downtown
distinctive, and attractive both to shoppers and retailers,
diversity ought to be encouraged within the previously
mentioned limits. This diversity ought to simultaneously
include both conservation and rehabilitation, and the best of
contemporary architectural work.
In order for design guidelines to be effective and successful
the Agency must effect leadership, at least in part, through an
activist design review process. Thought should be given to the
structure of this process, in order that the Agency might play a
constructive role early in the life of a proposed project. I am
not sure that the City's purposes are well served by effectively
cursory design review at the tail end of the approvals process.
Robert Kass
Page four
As with the urban design issues, design review is a topic I
would like to take up with you in greater detail.
I have completed a rough draft of specific modifications to the
proposed design guidelines, which speak to the approach
suggested above. Changes and deletions are highlighted. I will
appreciate hearing your views and comments. I understand that
you require a completed draft early next week, and we will be
happy to provide this.
I look forward to hearing from you.
David Weingarten
Ace Archi tects
Enclosures
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 26, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS
TA 88-04
City-initiated
Continued public hearing to consider a
City-initiated amendment to Chapter 21.26 (C3
Central Business District) of the Campbell
Municipal Code to provide development and use
regulations for the downtown area.
Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S:
Dickson, Perrine -
That the public hearing on TA 88-04 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of October 25, 1988, at the request of the
Redevelopment Director. Motion carried
unanimously (6-0-1).
ITEM NO. 10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 26, 1988
TA 88-04
City-initiated
Continued public hearing to consider a
City-initiated amendment to Chapter 21.26 (C3
Central Business District) of the Campbell
Municipal Code to provide development and use
regulations for the downtown area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning commission continue this item to its meeting of
October 25, 1988.
STAFF DISCUSSION
This item was continued from the meeting of May 24, 1988 in order to provide
additional time for review. As the Commission is aware, the City recently
hired a Redevelopment Director. He has reviewed the ordinance and indicated
that he would like additional time so as to study it in detail. Therefore, it
is recommended that this item be continued to the meeting of October 25, 1988.
Staff will renotice the meeting at that time because of the long time span
since the original notice.
MEMORANDUM
To: Kevin C. Duggan Date: July 25,1988
City Manager
Robert Kass~
Redevelopment Director
From:
Subject: Proposed Downtown Zoning Revision
CITY OF CAMPBELL
I have completed a preliminary review of the proposed amendment to the
City's zoning ordinance for downtown Campbell.
The proposed downtown zoning district is generally consistent with the
adopted Campbell Downtown Development Plan. I have a number of concerns,
however, regarding the land use, design, and development recommendations
in the Plan, and the appropriateness of codifying these recommendations at
this time.
A major objective of the downtown plan (and the proposed zoning amendment)
is the creation of a better "tenant mix" within downtown Campbell. While
this is important to the success of retail downtown, strictly limiting
permitted uses, particularly new or expanded service commercial uses along
Campbell Avenue, may not achieve the desired results. We may wish to
pursue other approaches to achieving the right tenant mix before
implementing the proposed use controls. An aggressive business attraction
strategy in conjunction with a property and business owner's association
is one approach that should be considered.
A second major objective of the downtown plan is to insure quality design
and construction of both building renovations and new developments. We
should more thoroughly review the specific design standards and guidelines
contained in the Downtown Plan before incorporating these formally in the
zoning ordinance. Some of the design guidelines in the Downtown Plan will
need to be refined to make them appropriate for downtown Campbell.
I strongly support the 90 day deferral of the proposed rezoning before it
is again considered by the Planning Commission. It is critical that we
understand as fully as possible the impacts the proposed rezoning might
have on the downtown redevelopment program before we proceed further.
I am in the process of obtaining a bid from an architectural firm that has
done a substantial amount of commercial/storefront design work to review
and comment on the proposed downtown zoning guidelines and standards. I
believe it would be extremely valuable to have a "second opinion" prior to
formalizing any standards in the zoning ordinance. I will forward to you
a scope of work and proposed contract amount shortly.
cc: Tara Adams Art Kee
Marry Woodworth
JUL 2 8 1988
CITY I~F gAi~,ii;;'SELL
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION ~.~ZETING
JUNE 14, 1988
TA 88-04
City-initiated
Continued public hearing to consider a
City-initiated amendment to Chapter 21.26 (C3
Central Business District) of the Campbell
Municipal Code to provide development and use
regulations for the downtown area.
Principal Planner Stafford reported that the Executive Director of the
Redevelopment Agency has requested that this item be continued to the last
meeting in July in order to provide additional review and comment on the
proposed ordinance; therefore, Staff is recommending continuance to July 26,
1988.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S:
Kasolas, Stanton -
That the public hearing on TA 88-04 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of July 26, 1988. Motion carried unanimously
(7-0-0).
ITEM NO. 8
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 14, 1988
TA 88-04
City-initiated
Continued public hearing to consider a
City-initiated amendment to Chapter 21.26 (C3
Central Business District) of the Campbell
Municipal Code to provide development and use
regulations for the downtown area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning commission continue this item to its meeting of July 26,
1988.
STAFF DISCUSSION
The Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency has requested that this item
be continued to the last meeting in July in order to provide additional review
and comment on the proposed ordinance.
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Kevin C. Duggan
City Manager
Marry Woodworth
Planner II
Date:
CITY OF CAMPBELL
June 8, 1988
Subject: Proposed C3 Zoning District Retail Restrictions
As you are aware, the Planning Staff has been developing specific zoning
regulations for the downtown core. A part of the proposed ordinance is
specific regulations requiring retail only uses in certain areas. Listed
below are the major components of the retail only restrictions.
1. Location
Retail uses and standard restaurant uses only would be required
for those ground floor businesses fronting E. Campbell Ave.
between Second St. and the railroad tracks to the east (C3-I
Subdistrict as indicated on the attached map). For businesses in
the C3-I Subdistrict that do not front directly onto E. Campbell
Ave. a maximum of 25% of the gross ground floor area may be
service commercial, whereas the remainder must be retail.
For businesses fronting E. Campbell Ave. between Second St. and
Fourth St. (C3-III Subdistrict) 25% of the gross floor area of
the ground floor must be retail where a parcel has 100 feet or
more of frontage on E. Campbell Ave.
'['he C3-II Subdistrict would allow most commercial uses including
retail, office, sgrvice commercial, and restaurant uses. Upper
floors would be permitted these uses and residential uses.
2. Definition of Retail Uses
The ordinance lists specific retail uses that would be allowed. These
uses are businesses that sell a specific product or item to the public
and would be appropriate in a downtown area. It should be noted that
uses such as travel agencies, real estate offices, and beauty parlors
are not considered retail uses and would not be permitted in the
retail only areas. The ordinance goes on to define
restaurant/entertainment uses, service commercial uses, office uses,
and residential uses. The ordinance also states that the
Redevelopment Agency may approve uses not listed in the ordinance.
Kevin C. Duggan
RE: Proposed C3 Zoning District
Retail Restrictions
June 8, 1988
Page 2.
3. Exceptions to Use Requirements
Section 21.26.040 provides a means by which the Planning Director may
approve an exception to the retail only requirements in the C3-I and
C3-III Subdistricts when the following are met:
The applicant can provide evidence that the space for which the
exception is being requested has been vacant and available for
occupancy at fair market rent for six months or more.
The requested use will not be detrimental to the public health
and safety; and
~ne exception shall be granted only for a specific use for a
maximum of five years.
4. Parking Requirement - Building Expansion
Under Section 21.26.090(B) of the proposed code, legally existing uses
will be required to meet the new parking standards when:
There is a change in use to one which requires more parking than
is currently provided; or
An existing use is expanded by 25% or more of the existing gross
floor area of the building.
5. Nonconforming uses
Section 21.26.120 of the proposed code sets forth the regulations
regarding nonconforming uses as follows:
The nonconforming use of a building or structure may only be
changed to a use allowed by the ordinance and in conformity with
the regulations set forth in the ordinance.
Whenever a nonconforming use has been abandoned or discontinued
for a continuous period of 6 months, the nonconforming use shall
not be re-established; and, the use of the structure and site
thereafter shall comply with the regulations of the ordinance.
A nonconforming use of a building or structure shall not be
expanded or extended into any other portion of the building or
structure.
If you have questions regarding the retail component of the ordinance,
please feel free to contact me.
MCW:ld
f: C3DISTRICT
ITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
(408) 866-2100
Department: Planning
June 1, 1988
Roxanne Provence
Executive Director
Campbell Chamber of Commerce
328 E. Campbell Ave.
Campbell, CA 95008
RE: Proposed Downtown Zoning Regulations
Dear Ms. Provence:
Enclosed for you review is a copy of the proposed downtown zoning
regulations. The Staff Report describes briefly some of the major
issues with the ordinance.
This item will be heard by the Planning Commission on June 14, 1988.
If you have written comments, it would be helpful if you could submit
those to the Planning Department by June 8, 1988 in order that we may
include them in the Commission's agenda packet. Of course, you are
invited to offer oral testimony at the hearing or submit written
material at that time.
Please feel free to contact me at 866-2140 should you have questions
about the proposed ordinance.
Sincerely,
ARTHUR A. KEE
PLANNING DIRECTOR
OODWORTH
PLANNER II
id
Enclosure: Staff Report - TA 88-04
PLANNING COMMISSION I~,~ETING
MAY 24, 1988
PUBLIC HEARINGS
TA 88-04
City-initiated
Continued public hearing to consider a
City-initiated amendment to Chapter 21.26 (C3
Central Business District) of the Campbell
Municipal Code to provide development and use
regulations for the downtown area.
Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of May 24, 1988, noting that
Staff has heard from a few people, including the Chamber of Commerce, who wish
to further review the proposal; therefore, Staff is recommending a continuance
to June 14, 1988.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Mr. Dick Hardy requested a continuance on behalf of the Campbell Chamber of
Commerce.
M/S:
Olszewski, Kasolas -
That the public hearing on TA 88-04 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of June 14, 1988. Motion carried unanimously
(7-o-o).
ITEM NO. 6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 24, 1988
TA 88-04
City-initiated
Continued public hearing to consider a
City-initiated amendment to Chapter 21.26 (C3
Central Business District) of the Campbell
Municipal Code to provide development and use
regulations for the downtown area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt a RESOLUTION, including the attached
findings, recommending that the City Council APPROVE the amended C3
District as indicated in Exhibit A; OR
If the Commission has concerns regarding the ordinance, that it be
CONTINUED to the meeting of June 14, 1988 in order that Staff may make
revisions.
STAFF DISCUSSION
This item was continued from the meeting of May 10, 1988 in order that the
Commission could have additional time to review the draft ordinance. Since
that time the City Attorney has made some modifications to strengthen it
legally. What follows is a summary of the major issues involved with this
ordinance.
As the Commission is aware, in January of this year the City Council adopted
the Campbell Downtown Development Plan. This plan sets policy for the
redevelopment of downtown Campbell. Since that time, the Planning Staff has
been directed to develop specific zoning regulations for the downtown core in
order to implement the adopted draft.
Staff used the former C3 District (Central Business District) and rewrote this
chapter for the downtown area. On April 5, 1988, the Redevelopment Agency
reviewed the draft and directed the Planning Commission to hold a public
hearing on the proposed C3 District.
Attached for the Cox~ission's review is a draft of the C3 District.
below are the major areas that the Commission may want to focus on.
Outlined
Currently, the entire downtown core is zoned PD (Planned Development),
which requires recommendation by the Commission and approval of an
ordinance by the Council for all developments. With the C3 ordinance,
the review process would be the same except that the Redevelopment
Agency instead of the City Council would be the decision-making body,
and aprpoval would be by resolution instead of ordinance.
The standards in the ordinance were taken as directly as possible from
the adopted Downtown Plan, however, some interpretation was required
as a result of going from a policy document to a regulatory
ordinance. Consequently, there is some flexibility in this ordinance
in terms of carrying out the intent of the adopted plan.
TA 88-04 -2- May 24, 1988
In the ordinance, the specific uses which would be allowed in
different parts of the downtown area are listed in table form in order
to clearly illustrate the uses allowed and those not allowed. As the
Commission is aware, the Downtown Plan called for strictly retail uses
on c~rtain portions of the downtown and other uses elsewhere. Staff
suggests the Gommis$ion look carefully at the allowed uses to assure
these are the desired types of uses downtown.
The required setbacks, height, floor area ratios, and parking were
taken directly from the adopted downtown plan.
Specific design standards are provided for the downtown area. This is
the first area in the City where such standards have been used. The
standards were adopted from the adopted Downtown Plan and Staff
believes that some additional review and revision may be necessary to
get them in a workable form.
The downtown will also have specific design standards for signing
which differs from the rest of the City. These standards were adopted
from the adopted plan and Staff believes additional work may be
needed to make them effective. Careful review of the standards is
recommended.
A nonconforming use section was included which allows such uses to
continue but not to change to another nonconforming use or to be
expanded or enlarged. Should the City wish to be more aggressive,
some type of amortization period for nonconforming uses may be
possible.
If the Commission has concerns or wants additional information, a continuance
to June 14, 1988, would be in order. Otherwise, approval is recommended.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: TA 88-04
CHAPTER 21.26 (C3 DISTRICT)
PC MTG: 5-24-88
The C3 District will be consistent with the General Plan and the adopted
Downtown D~velopment Plan.
Specific zoning regulations for downtown are needed in order to implement
the Downtown Development Plan.
CITY COUNCIL
.MAY 17, 1988
Public Hearing -
Introduction of Ordinance -
City-initiated text
amendment to Sections
21.61.070 and 21.50.050 of
the Campbell Municipal Code
- establishing stanaards
and proce~,~es for review
of Day ~e
This is the time and place for a public
hearing to consider a proposed ordinance
which provides development standards and a
review procedure for large family day care
hom~s consistent with the Health and Safety
Code of the State of California.
Planning Director Kee - Staff Sum~
report dated 5/17/88.
Councilmember Ashworth - suggested that
Verbage in the City Attorney's legal
opinion dated March 7, 1988 be substituted
un~e~ Section 21.61.070, D-l(b).
The Council discussed Section 21.61.070,
Noise, and questioned if this section was
necessary.
Counci~ Ashworth - commented re:
Overconcentration, and stated that he
believes each application should stand On
its own marits, rather than be restricted
to within 300 feet of another existing day
care center.
Councilmember Watson - ~nted re: Permit
Process, stating that she would recommend
using wor~ng in Exhibit #D", designating
the Planning Director to evaluate the
application for a Large Family Day Care
hc~e, rather than the Planning Cc~nission.
Councilmember Kotowski - suggested adding a
subsection to Traditional Famil~
Environment to state that a hc~e used for
large family day care shall not constitute
a departure fr~n the residential
neighborhood. He also suggested a
statement be ad~d to a~ess signage.
The Mayor declared the public hearing
open.
Pat Morris, 44 Campbell Avenue, stated that
she operates a large family day care home.
She a~essed tb~ issue of noise and
parking, and spoke in favor of the
residential environment for young children.
Lee Peterson, 1156 Audrey Ave., urged the
City Council's approval of the proposed
text amendments.
Fx~ Clements, 595 Park Ave., San Jose, asked
for clarification re: retroactivity of this
proposed ordinance.
City Attorney Seligmann - explained that
the proposed ordinance would D~t be
retroactive to existing large family day
care homes, unless the home was operating
in violation of its use permit.
The City Council discussed a proposed draft
review procedure prepared by the Staff
(Exhibit D), as well as a revised procedure
rec~.,~ended by the Planning Ccemission
(Exhibit E).
M/S: Kotowski/Watson - to close the public
hearing. Motion adopted unanimously.
The Council considered proF)sed ~
modifications to Exhibit "E" discussed this
evening.
It was the consensus of the Council to
modify Exhibit "E" as follows:
Parking and Loading - no change.
Noise - eliminate Subsection 2-a.
Overconcentration - no change.
Traditional Family Environment - Add
paragraph "c" to read "The fact that a hce~
is used as a Large Family Day Care Home
shall in and of itself not be construed to
constitute a departure of the integrity of
the residential neighborhood."
Qamended to read: "The
care home shall provide
adequate indoor living space and outdoor
open space to meet the needs of the
children o
Permit Process - an~nd language in Exhibit
"E" to read as in Exhibit "D".
~ Subsection D-7 to state "A large Family
Day Care Hc~e must cceply with the
provisions of 21.50 regulating signs in the
City of Campbell.
M/S: Kotowski/Watson - to a~cept the
Negative Declaration which has been
prepared for this project. Motion adopted
un~ly.
~%/S: Kotowski/Watson - to introduce for
first reading the proposed ordinance, as
amended. Motion adopted by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmsmbers: Ashworth,
Kotowski, Doetsch, Watson,
Podgorsek
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABS~:~f: Councilmembers: None
The City Clerk read the Ordinance title.
M/S: Doetsch/Watson - to waive further
reading. Motion adopted unanimously.
Confidential:
Attorney/Client
Privileged
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Arthur Kee, Planning Director
William Seligmann, City Attorney
16 May 1988
C-3 Ordinance
After reviewing the first draft of the proposed C-3
District regulations, I have attached some potential revisions,
most of which are simply for clarification. New material is
indicated by underlining ( ) and deletions are
indicated by cross-outs ( ........ ).
A. Specific Changes and Recommendations
1. Section 21.26.030 and 21.26.040
Sections 21.26.030 and 21.26.040 have been
revised by naming a decision maker for granting the listed
exceptions. Similarly, more explicit criteria have been added to
avoid possible challenges for vagueness.
2, Section 21.26.100
a. Many of the criteria set forth in section
21.26.100 used words such as "encourage" or discourage." In
order to avoid a challenge for vagueness or overbreadth, I have
attempted to establish some criteria for determining how to
employ these goals. These criteria, of course, may be modified
if you can think of more appropriate standards.
b. In subsection "G," the method of approval
has been changed from "ordinance" to "resolution," since the
Redevelopment Agency does not have authority to enact zoning
ordinances. In a similar vein, there is some question about
whether the Redevelopment Agency can make a final zoning permit
approval. Our Redevelopment Counsel believes that such a role
for the Redevelopment Agency is probably alright, but cautions
that the issue is unresolved.
Also in subsection "G," the word "shall"
has been changed to "may" to avoid the interpretation that
approval is a mandatory act.
Hemorandum - ~o Eee
Re: ¢-3 Ordinance
16 May 1988
Page two
c. In subsection "I," assuming the
Redevelopment Agency is to remain the ultimate decision maker,
mere reference to Chapter 21.80 is insufficient~ since Chapter
21.80 does not involve the Redevelopment Agency. Consequently, I
have rewritten that subsection using Chapter 21.80 as an example.
3. Section 21.26.060
As originally written, the setback provisions
did not state whether they were applicable to front, side, or
rear areas. As revised, they would apply to all sides. If this
result was not the intent, it should be corrected.
B. Other Suggestions
In addition to the foregoing suggestions, it would also
be advisable to include a definition of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in
the definitions section of Title 21.
PLANNING COMMISSION ME=~ING
MAY 10, 1988
TA 88-04
City-initiated
Public hearing to consider a City-initiated
amendment to Chapter 21.26 (C3 Central
Business District) of the Campbell Municipal
Code to provide development and use
regulations for the downtown area.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of May 10, 1988, noting
that Staff is recommending that the Commission review this matter, offer
recommendations, and continue the public hearing to May 24, 1988.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S:
Olszewski, Stanton -
That the public hearing on TA 88-04 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of May 24, 1988. Motion carried unanimously
(5-0-2).
ITEM NO. 10
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 10, 1988
TA 88-04
City-initiated
Public hearing to consider a City-initiated
amendment to Chapter 21.26 (C3 Central Business
District) of the Campbell Municipal Code to
provide development and use regulations for the
downtown area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. That the Planning Commission review the proposed text and offer
recommendations; and
2. That the Commission CONTINUE this item to the meeting of May 24, 1988, in
order for Staff to revise the ordinance.
STAFF DISCUSSION
As the Commission is aware, in January of this year the City Council adopted
the Campbell Downtown Development Plan. This plan sets policy for the
redevelopment of downtown Campbell. Since that time, the Planning Staff has
been directed to develop specific zoning regulations for the downtown core in
order to implement the adopted draft.
Staff used the former C3 District (Central Business District) and rewrote this
chapter for the downtown area. On April 5, 1988, the Redevelopment Agency
reviewed the draft and directed the Planning Commission to hold a public
hearing on the proposed C3 District.
Attached for the Commission's review is a draft of the C3 District. Outlined
below are the major areas that the Commission may want to focus on.
Currently, the entire downtown core is zoned PD (Planned Development),
which requires recommendation by the Commission and approval of an
ordinance by the Council for all developments. With the C3 ordinance,
the review process would be the same except that the Redevelopment
Agency instead of the City Council would be the decision-making body.
o
The standards in the ordinance were taken as directly as possible from
the adopted Downtown Plan, however, some interpretation was required
as a result of going from a policy document to a regulatory
ordinance. Consequently, there is some flexibility in this ordinance
in terms of carrying out the intent of the adopted plan.
o
In the ordinance, the specific uses which would be allowed in
different parts of the downtown area are listed in table form in order
to clearly illustrate the uses allowed and those not allowed. As the
Commission is aware, the Downtown Plan called for strictly retail uses
on certain portions of the downtown and other uses elsewhere. Staff
suggests the Commission look carefully at the allowed uses to assure
these are the desired types of uses downtown.
TA 88-04 -2- May 10, 1988
The required setbacks, height, floor area ratios, and parking were
taken directly from the adopted downtown plan.
Specific design standards are provided for the downtown area. This is
the first area in the City where such standards have been used. The
standards were taken directly from the adopted Downtown Plan and Staff
believes that some additional review and revision will be necessary to
get them in a workable form.
The downtown will also have specific design standards for signing
which differs from the rest of the City. Once again, these standards
were taken directly from the adopted plan and Staff believes
additional work is needed to make them effective.
o
A nonconforming use section was included which allows such uses to
continue but not to change to another nonconforming use or to be
expanded or enlarged. Should the City wish to be more aggressive,
some type of amortization period for nonconforming uses may be
possible.
Staff suggests that the Commission review the ordinance and make
recommendations to Staff on areas of concern. Staff will come back with the
modifications at the meeting of May 24, 1988. Also, at the meeting of May 24,
1988, will be a modification to the Land Use Element text of the General Plan
making reference to the downtown area; and, the actual zone change from PD to
C3.
C ! TY OF GA~pBIr/I-,'
TO
FR~M
RE: F'£RRAL ~
CITY (ZZ,INCIL/ADVISORY OOl4~iSSION/STAFF
Plannin~ Commission
Redevelopment A~enc~
APR 2, 2 1988
CITY OF CAMPI~ELL.
PL..AN N I NI2 DEPARTMENT
IHSTRUCTION$ ~ LISE: OF THIS
THIS FORM SHOULD BE UTILIZED WHENEVER A REFERRAL IS MADE FROM ONE
E~ECTED OR ADVISORY BODY TO THE CITY COUNCI~ OR ADVISORY COW lSSION OR
CiTY MANAGER- THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO.COMF~EI'~ THIS FORM SHOULD
PROVIDED BY ~HE INITIATOR AT THE TIME THE R~F~RRAL IS MADE- TH~ STAFF
ADVISOR .WILL BE RESII'C)NSIB~E FOR COMPLETING THE FORM FOR RB~I~R AND
SIGNATURE BY THE MAYOR OR COIV~'ISSION CHAIRMAN-
DRAFT GENERAL PLAN/ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS - DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
SUBJECT (A SPE:CIFIC StJIVB~M:~OF 11-B;: RE:F~RRAL)
The Redevel~Dm~n~ Aaen~v at it~ reo~]lar m~tina on April 5. 1988.
referred the at~ached draft General Plan amendments and draft
Zonino Ordinance amendments to the Plannin~ Commissioq, It is
requested that the Planninq Commission initiate the appropriate
actions and hold reouired public hearinos to amend th9 General
for implementing the Downtown Plan.
REV! EW AND
RECOMMEND ACT ION
TAKE ACTION
Return recommendations to the City Council.
RE:SFK:X',ISE: RE:QUeSTeD BY
4/5/88
NC) DATE IS SPECIFIED. THAT SHOULD BE INDICATED.
June 21, 1988 CiTY
--~..__~'~' ' ,~..:;~' ' ~ TM~NT
STAFF PROCESS LIST
AND CASE SHEET
FILE NO. TA 88-04
AGENDA DATE: MAY 10, 1988
DATE FILED:
FEE: PAID:
SITE ADDRESS:
PROPOSED USE:
APPLICANT:
ADDRESS:
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 21.26
C3 (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT)
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 N FIRST ST.
CAMPBELL CA 95008
APN NO:
ZON ING:
GENERAL PLAN:
PHONE NO: 866-2140
DATE PUBLISHED IN CAMPBELL PRESS:
DATE PROPERTY WAS POSTED (IF APPLICABLE):
DATE LETTER SENT TO APPLICANT:
DATE OF FIRST (PUBLIC) HEARING:
CONTINUED TO:
APPROVED DATE:
DENIED DATE:
RESOLUTION NO:
RESOLUTION NO:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY CITY COUNCIL:
FINAL ACTION: APPROVED DENIED
Copies to:
Description
Public hearing to amend Chapter 21.26 (C3 Central
Business District) of the Campbell Municipal Code
to provide development and use regulations for the
downtown area.
MEMORANDUM
KEVIN C. DUGGAN
To: CITY MANAGER Date:
ARTHUR A. KEE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
MARTY C. WOODWORTH, PLANNER II
From:
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF CAMPBELL
~L~RCH 31, 1988
Subject: DOWNTOWN ZONING ORDINANCE (C3 ZONING DISTRICT)
Attached for your review is a preliminary draft of the zoning regulations
for the downtown core. In this draft, the former C-3 (Central Business
District Commercial) regulations have been re-written to apply to the area
within the loop streets. The adopted Downtown Development Plan was used
as the basis for the ordinance. However, anytime one goes from a somewhat
general policy statement to a specific regulatory ordinance, a number of
"gray" areas appear. In this draft, Staff has attempted to translate the
City Council's intent in the plan to the ordinance. This memo will
outline those areas where additional review or discussion is likely.
Prior to writing this ordinace, Staff conducted research on downtown
zoning ordinances. Materials were received from the American Planning
Association Planning Advisory Service in Chicago. Also, it was learned
that Palo Alto and Scaramento both had downtown commercial regulations
with ground floor regulations restricted to retail type uses and copies
were obtained.
The following issues are worthy of discussion:
1. Most zoning districts in the City (C1, C2, M1, R1, R2, R3, PO)
are combined with the "S" (Site and Architectural Review Area)
designation which requires that any development in the district
goes before the Planning Commission for review but not before the
City Council. The PD District would require review before both
bodies. It was Staff's understanding that the Redevelopment
Agency wished to have final control over development downtown,
consequently, combining the C3 district with the "S" designation
would not be appropriate.
In this draft, a review procedure is presented whereby an
application for a development would first be reviewed by the
Downtown Review Committee. This would be a new body, the make-up
of which would have to be determined. However, it might consist
of architect(s), downtown property owners, merchants, and Staff.
This body would act as an advisory committee to the Redevelopment
Agency which would make the final decisions. Applications for
development would be processed by the Redevelopment Director.
Kevin C. Duggan
Downtown Zoning Ordinance
March 31, 1988
Page 2.
In the adopted Downtown Development Plan, allowed uses such as
retail, service commercial, and office were listed; however, what
these uses specifically included was not listed. In the draft
ordinance, Staff attempted to specifically define each individual
use which would be permitted. By doing this, it alleviates
problems at a later date due to interpretation. Also, it is
Staff's belief that not all retail uses may be appropriate
downtown, such as retail automotive related products.
In order to attempt to simplify a rather complex ordinance, Staff
listed the allowed uses in table form, a method used by both Palo
Alto and Sacramento. You may notice that certain retail uses
(such as bookstores or liquor establishments) require a Downtown
Development Permit. This is based on past City Council policy
for additional control over these types of uses.
In writing the ordinance, Staff took a strict interpretation of
retail uses, and only listed those uses which are actually
considered retail. It should be noted that this is much stricter
than the ordinances of the other cities in that they normally
would allow personal services and other quasi-retail uses. An
"Exception" section was added whereby the Redevelopment Agency
could allow other than retail uses in the required areas if
certain provisions are met. In addition, the Redevelopment
Agency may consider adding uses not listed in the ordinance.
The standards for the design review guidelines and signing
guidelines were taken directly from the adopted Downtown
Development Plan. These standards provide general guidelines for
the design of buildings and signs. If more specific regulations
are desired, additional study should be completed by design
professionals.
A nonconforming use section was included which allows such uses
to continue but not to change to another nonconforming use or to
be expanded or enlarged. This section should be carefully
reviewed by the City Attorney.
I am happy to discuss the draft ordinance with you are your convenience.
AAK:MCW:ld
f: c3district