Loading...
PC Min - 06/26/2007 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY JUNE 26, 2007 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of June 26, 2007, was called to order at 7:32 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Rocha and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Michael Rocha Bob Roseberry Bob Alderete George Doorley Mark Ebner Tom Francois (@8:30 p.m.) Elizabeth Gibbons Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Acting COD Director: Associate Planner: Planner II: Planner I: Housing Coordinator: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Jackie C. Young Lind Tim J. Haley Kimberly A. Brosseau Steve Prosser Sharon Teeter William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Roseberry, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of June 12, 2007, were approved. (6-0-0-1; Commissioner Gibbons abstained for the entire set of minutes while Commissioner Alderete abstained from the portion of the minutes pertaining to one item for which he had to recuse himself due to proximity of the project site to his home) Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS 1. Table item for Agenda Item No 4. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Rocha read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. Density Bonus Ordinance Update Public Hearing to consider amending Title 21 of the Campbell Municipal Code, revised, by repealing Sections 21.20.010-21.20.090 and adding a new Chapter 21.20, Density Bonus. and other incentives for affordable residential units, senior housing and childcare facilities; and adopt a finding that the Environmental Impact Report dated July 26, 2001, provides full and adequate environmental review for the adoption of an updated Density Bonus Ordinance. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: July 17, 2007. Report Presented by: Sharon Teeter, Housing Coordinator Ms. Sharon Teeter, Housing Coordinator, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the Commission is being asked to take two actions. One, to adopt a resolution recommending that Council find the Environmental Impact Report dated July 26, 2007, provides full and adequate review for the adoption of the revised and updated Density Bonus Ordinance in order to comply with State law. Two, to adopt a resolution recommending that Council amend Title 21 of the Municipal Code, Sections 21.20-010 through 21.20.090, Density Bonus and Affordable Housing Incentives to comply with State Housing law. · Reported that the State Housing Law has been revised several times. In 1991, the City of Campbell adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance to meet the State Density Bonus Law, which required local governments to grant a density bonus of at least 25 percent above the General Plan density range to a housing developer whose project of five or more units contain either 20 percent of the units for lower-income households or 10 percent of the units for very-low income households or 50 percent of the units for senior citizens. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 3 . Added that in 2004, the City's Zoning Code, of which the density bonus is a part, was revised to bring the Zoning Code into consistency with the General Plan, to modernize the language and make it easier to interpret by adding illustrations and provide a new organizational format. . Advised that in 2005, the State again amended the State Density Bonus Program, which requires the City of Campbell to again update its Density Bonus Ordinance. . Said that the State's Density Bonus Program reduced the base by-right density bonus from 25 percent to 20 percent. However, if developers want a higher density bonus increase, the maximum allowed is up to 35 percent, the developer must increase the number of set-aside affordable units, including very-low, low or even senior housing units. . Stated that the revised Ordinance also more clearly defines the standards for incentives and concessions, including waivers or modification of development standards including: o 20 percent reduction in yard setbacks o 20 percent increase in maximum lot coverage o 20 percent reduction in required open space o Reduction of off-street parking o Reduction in front, side or rear setbacks o Reduction in required landscape area . Reported that some of these incentives and concessions may be approved by the Planning Commission while others may take approval by Council. . Explained that density bonus target units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the residential project, be comparable in design to the market-rate units, have the same number of bedrooms, appearance, materials and finished quality as the market-rate units, have no significant identifiable differences visible from the exterior and/or size and design of the interior. . Added that density bonus units will not count for the City's inclusionary unit requirement unless the below-market rate units are made available at a lower affordable rent or for-sale cost as mandated under the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. . Said that all building permits for target units qualifying for a residential project for a density bonus shall be issued concurrently with, or prior to, issuance of building permits for the market-rate units. Occupancy permits and final inspections for target units shall be approved concurrently for market-rate units. . Said that nothing in this Ordinance requires the City to provide direct financial incentives for the residential project, including but not limited to the provision of publicly owned land or waiver fees or dedication requirements. Commissioner Doorley asked what is the upside of allowing up to a 35 percent density bonus when the base amount is being reduced from 25 to 20 percent. Will this lead to more units? Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 4 Housing Coordinator Sharon Teeter deferred this question to Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind: . Explained that it is anticipated that this will more easily be applied to larger projects since small lots would have a more difficult time fitting in additional units. . Reported that the Senior Housing Project will come before the Commission on July 10th for a Study Session. They are proposing a project consisting of a 35 percent density bonus. Commissioner Doorley asked about the applicability to inclusionary housing. Housing Coordinator Sharon Teeter said that it applies to inclusionary units as well as density bonus units. Commissioner Gibbons asked about the reduction from 25 to 20 percent. She asked if the State law requires local jurisdictions to define what incentives are allowed. She asked if the Planning Commission has to give those concessions. Housing Coordinator Sharon Teeter replied yes. She added that this is a general list of concessions and the Planning Commission decides if it is good or not. Commissioner Gibbons asked what if a developer is asking for a concession that is not appropriate. City Attorney William Seligmann explained that if the developer needs a concession the City must offer a concession but perhaps not the one for which they asked. Commissioner Gibbons asked if the State mandates that a project must get what they are asking for. City Attorney William Seligmann said that the Density Bonus Ordinance allows for additional units. Additional concessions must be made available if they ask since they have to provide units for less; they need to get something in return. He added that the concessions offer flexibility to the developer. Commissioner Gibbons asked if the concessions have to be given. City Attorney William Seligmann replied if they qualify, yes. He added that they have to provide proof of need for the concession. Commissioner Gibbons said that this would represent a horrendous challenge for staff. She added that developers will simply say that they need these concessions. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 5 Housing Coordinator Sharon Teeter said that the developer would really have to document their need for the concessions including a full fledged proforma. Commissioner Gibbons gave an example to make sure she understands the potential for increased units. If a project has 100 units and 15 of them are inclusionary housing units, the total allowed with the density bonus would be an additional five units for a total project count of 120 units. Housing Coordinator Sharon Teeter replied yes. Commissioner Alderete asked if a minimum of one concession granted is required or if it can be demonstrated that no concessions are necessary. Housing Coordinator Sharon Teeter replied yes. Commissioner Alderete: · Pointed out that staff has listed five different possible areas for incentives and/or concessions that include lot coverage, reduced landscaping, reduced common open space area. The next tier increases in severity and the third tier might include the waiving of fees. · Asked why five concessions are included in the Code if only one concession is required. · Suggested that the language be added prior to the list to read, "One of the following." City Attorney William Seligmann said that this would certainly be appropriate language to add. He added that depending upon what the developer is providing; they get up to three concessions. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind said that one incentive is for number of units. Two and three concessions include affordability range. Commissioner Alderete: · Said that it seems that the more you give the more you give. · Said that he believes in affordable housing but also believes in the Zoning Code and what it is supposed to do to maintain the character of the City. · Stated that it seems that this Density Bonus Ordinance requires the City to drop its standards very severely. · Pointed out that multiple-family housing developments produce the least level of revenue for a City while resulting in the greatest drain on City services. · Stressed the need to balance the desire for affordable housing units versus the need to use extreme measures to get those units. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind: · Stated that the number of concessions to be offered corresponds with the level of affordability. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 6 . Assured that the concessions listed in the draft Ordinance are the City's and not the State's. Commissioner Ebner sought clarification from staff that the incentives are what the City would like to do. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind replied yes. She added that the developer applies for the concession with the proposed project. Commissioner Gibbons asked if there is discretion on the content of the concessions. City Attorney William Seligmann said that it would have to be proven by a developer that a denial of a requested concession is an abuse of discretion, which would be difficult to do. Commissioner Gibbons said it is important to take a look at the draft range of concessions to determine if they are appropriate and/or reasonable or not. Commissioner Ebner asked if the Commission could chose from among those concessions included in the draft tonight. He added that this is a lot of information to digest and dissect. He said that he thought a postponement is in order to allow further study. Chair Rocha asked staff if it is within the Commission's purview to continue this item. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind replied yes. She cautioned that there are projects coming up and this Density Bonus has been advertised for the July 17th Council agenda but that could be continued. She added that the Senior Housing project at Winchester and Rincon is relying on some direction. Chair Rocha asked for a motion. Commissioner Alderete: · Said that studying further is not quite enough for him. · Stated that the densities currently embedded in the Zoning Code need to be revisited as this potentially would have a huge impact on densities. · Stressed the need for a good and practical review. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind: . Reminded that the current Density Bonus Ordinance does not comply with State law. · Added that the pending Senior Housing Project would have to rely on the State Law, which has its own list of concessions. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 7 . Stressed the importance of establishing the City's own list of concessions as soon as possible. . Suggested a Study Session be held. Chair Rocha said that this is an appropriate action. Commissioner Doorley said that options and ramifications have to be studied. Commissioner Roseberry asked how the draft was put together as it appears that there is different fonts and formatting. He asked if this document was the result of cut and past from an a la carte menu provided by the State. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind replied no. She added that the Study Session could include the review of a full list of possible concessions. She added that the next meeting, on July 10th, will not work for a Study Session as she would be on vacation next week and unable to prepare the kind of analysis required. She suggested setting the Study Session for July 24th instead. Commissioner Ebner asked if the State list could be available to study. Commissioner Gibbons suggested providing the State analysis in advance as well as Density Bonus Ordinances from other nearby similarly-sized cities such as Saratoga, Los Gatos and Santa Clara. Commissioner Alderete said that it is important to have information about what this means and what is the potential for increased density and/or housing units. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind: . Cautioned that there is no way for staff to provide that projection. A developer has to look at a project to determine if it "pencils" out. This is done on a case-by-case basis. . Added that one reason the Density Bonus Ordinance is being revisited is because the previous Density Bonus Ordinance didn't pencil out for developers. . Reminded that the return on an affordable unit is smaller than the return on a market-rate unit. The developer is providing something. Commissioner Alderete pointed out that the prices for "affordable" units are still very high. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind reminded that the Density Bonus does change the affordable rate. Commissioner Alderete said he researched the median income in Campbell and found it to be $75,504. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 8 Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind said that the July 24th Study Session will include comparisons between the City's draft incentives versus the State's as well as incentives adopted by other nearby cities. Commissioner Ebner pointed out that Campbell is far ahead of its neighbors in providing affordable housing units. He said he is more comfortable with having a Study Session on this issue on July 24th. Chair Rocha opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Ebner, the Planning Commission CONTINUED consideration of the Density Bonus Ordinance to a Study Session to be held on July 24,2007. (7-0) *** Chair Rocha read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: 2. PLN2007 -64 Critchfield Construction, Inc. Public Hearing to consider the application of Critchfield Construction, Inc., for a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2007-64) to allow for a minor modification of a side yard setback to allow for a second story addition and first floor remodel of an existing single- story, single-family residence on property owned by Russell Biswell and Tonja Chi located at 597 Maple Avenue in an R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Steve Prosser, Planner I Mr. Steve Prosser, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicant is seeking a Site and Architectural Review Permit to allow a minor modification to the side yard setback to allow for a new first and second story addition. · Described the property as being on the north side of Maple Avenue that is surrounded on all sides by residential properties. The property is zoned R-1- 6. . Said that there is an existing non-conforming first floor setback. · Stated that the east side yard setback requires modification. What is proposed is 6 feet while 8 feet, 10 inches is required. . Said that the Commission can approve this minor modification if it finds that it would not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the neighbors. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 9 · Explained that the proposed addition includes one second-story window on the west elevation and three windows on the rear elevation. There are no windows proposed for the east elevation. There are no resulting privacy impacts. · Stated that SARC reviewed this project on June 1 ih and was supportive. · Recommended that the Planning Commission find this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA as it represents an addition to an existing dwelling. · Recommended approval of the project and advised that the applicant is available this evening. Commissioner Gibbons asked for verification that this is not a Variance request but rather there simply are two conditions that must be met to allow such a minor modification to be granted by this Commission. Planner Steve Prosser replied correct. Commissioner Roseberry presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC reviewed this project on June 12th and was generally supportive. · Said that there were concerns over potential second-story window impacts and encouraged the applicant to contact his neighbors. Chair Rocha opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.2. Mr. Russ Biswell, Applicant and Property Owner: . Said that he bought this house in 1999 and now has two kids. · Added that they now need to expand their home. · Thanked the Commission for its consideration of his request. Commissioner Alderete advised that he lives near this neighborhood and he likes the plans for this home addition. He added that there are other additions like it in this area. He asked Mr. Russ Biswell if the point of his provided photographs was simply to demonstrate that there are other such homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Russ Biswell replied yes. Commissioner Alderete asked Mr. Russ Biswell if he had taken SARC's advice to do neighbor outreach. Mr. Russ Biswell said he did so and received no negative feedback thus far. He assured that he reached as many neighbors as he could. Chair Rocha closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.2. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 10 Commissioner Alderete said he is fine with this project as it fits in well in this area. He pointed out that the second story is not the same footprint as the entire home. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Alderete, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3817 approving a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2007 -64) to allow for a minor modification of a side yard setback to allow for a second-story addition and first- floor remodel of an existing single-story, single-family residence on property owned by Russell Biswell and Tonja Chi located at 597 Maple Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Ebner, Gibbons, Rocha and Roseberry None Francois None NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair Rocha advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Commissioner Francois arrived at 8:30 p.m. Chair Rocha read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows: 3. PLN2007-70 Osborne, J. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Jason Osborne, on behalf of NSA Wireless, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2007-70) to allow for the renewal of a wireless telecommunications facility (Sprint-Nextel antennas on a PG&E tower) on property owned by PG&E located at 1849 Pollard Road in a P- D (Planned Development) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Kimberly A. Brosseau, Planner II Ms. Kimberly A. Brosseau, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that that applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the continued use of an existing stealth telecommunications facility that consists of six antennas on a PG&E tower as well as a 200 square foot equipment enclosure that is surrounded by a redwood fence. . Explained that the original approval was granted in November 1998. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 11 · Said that the project conforms to zoning and recommended that the project be found Categorically Exempt under CEQA. · Recommended that a resolution approving this Use Permit be adopted. Commissioner Gibbons asked if the approval expired in five years or in 2003. Planner Kimberly A. Brosseau replied that she could not find a renewal of the original approval. Commissioner Gibbons asked if the recommendation is for a five-year renewal from now. Planner Kimberly A. Brosseau replied correct. Chair Rocha opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.3. Mr. Jason Osborne, Applicant and Representative for Sprint, said he was available for any questions. Chair Rocha closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.3. Commissioner Gibbons asked for feedback on having this approval being retroactive to 2003. City Attorney William Seligmann asked for what reason. Commissioner Gibbons said because the approval expired in 2003. Commissioner Roseberry said that he did not agree that going retroactive to 2003 was necessary as this is a pretty passive thing. Commissioner Ebner said that he agrees with Commission Gibbon's position that it should be retroactive. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that current State law calls for 10 year review periods rather than the previous standard of 5 year review periods. Commissioner Ebner asked when the law changed. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind said that she did not have the statute with her this evening but suggested that the applicant knows this information. Planner Kimberly A. Brosseau said that the law that provided for 1 O-year renewal reviews was updated by Senate Bill 1627 in January 2007. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 12 Commissioner Gibbons said that she could support a 10 year renewal retroactive from 2003. Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3818 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2007 -70) to allow for the renewal of a wireless telecommunications facility (Sprint-Nextel antennas on a PG&E tower) on property owned by PG&E located at 1849 Pollard Road, with modification to Condition 4 to reflect a 10 year renewal of approval retroactive to November 24, 2003 to be effective until November 24, 2013, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Motion: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Alderete, Doorley, Ebner, Rocha and Roseberry None None None Francois, Gibbons, Chair Rocha advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Rocha read Agenda Item No.4 into the record as follows: 4. PLN2007-23 PLN2007 -56 Mirkin, B. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Barry Mirkin for a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2007-23) to allow the construction of a new 12,288 square foot, two-story medical building on a vacant parcel and a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2007-56) to allow the establishment of medical services (dental offices) on property owned by Mr. Barry Mirkin located at 1930 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Kimberly Brosseau, Planner II Ms. Kimberly Brosseau, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Site and Architectural Review Permit and Use Permit to allow the construction of a new two-story medical building. · Explained that one setback would need to be reduced from the required 10 feet. The proposed rear setback is 5-feet, 8-inches. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 13 . Said that this project site is located across Bascom from the Pruneyard. . Said that the project evolved through several architectural designs to reach what is believed to be a more compatible design. · Reported that the applicant worked with the adjacent neighbors and has incorporated obscured glass, faux balconies and additional trees into the design. · Explained that the possibility of the consolidation of this lot with the Tower Records lot was considered but was not found to be feasible as both properties are owned separately. . Said that a traffic study was prepared and no significant impact was found. · Stated that the project conforms to the C-2 Zoning and General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. · Added that signage is not a part of this application but will be separately handled. · Recommended that the project be found Categorically Exempt under CEQA as it represents in-fill development. · Recommended the adoption of a resolution approving the Site and Architectural Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Roseberry presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: . Advised that SARC reviewed this project on May 8th and on June 12th. · Said that SARC had recommended that the height of the light standards be lowered in the parking lot; that the sill height for the rear windows be raised to four foot height and that obscured glass is used in the north and south stairwells. Chair Rocha opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.4. Mr. George Apo, Resident on Memory Lane: · Stated that he is very angry and against this proposed two-story medical building adjacent to his residence of 35 years. · Said that this building would be intrusive and have a big impact on his family's use of the back yard. . Added that the building would block the view of the sunrise. · Stated that the applicant should be forced to go back to the drawing board. · Explained that his wife has a bad lung disease and is on oxygen all the time. . Said that dust creates great difficulties for his wife. . Demanded that the applicant be required to relocate his wife to an apartment during construction. · Expressed concern over the proposed five-foot setback instead of the required 10 foot, saying that even 10 feet would be inadequate. . Asked that the Commission "shoot down this proposal." · Said that he is not happy this building is two-stories tall and its tenants will see directly into his backyard. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 14 . Reported that both he and his wife are retired and use their yard every day. . Asked that any glass be obscured. . Stated that he won't be happy with anything Mr. Mirkin does or this Planning Commission if this project is approved as proposed. Mr. Jim Veteran, Resident on Memory Lane: . Explained that his property is next door to Mr. Apo's. . Said that he is a long-time Campbell resident who taught at Campbell Union School District schools. He has been in this house for 45 years. · Said that he likes his home and likes Campbell. It has been good for his family and his family has been good for Campbell too. . Added that he lived in his home before the Pruneyard was constructed and before Tower Record. . Reported that they had on-going problems with Tower Records including parking problems, garbage problems and fires. He added that there are five fires over the years. Three of them he put out and two required Fire Department response. He said he was not sorry to see them go. . Said that he didn't expect this. · Distributed a photograph of his house and pointed to a redwood tree that he estimates is 28 feet tall. · Said that the proposed building would be imposing from the back. It would look over his house and dominate the immediate area. · Said this project is a lose-lose-lose situation. One he loses the view of the western sky. An oak tree hangs over the wall and will have to be dramatically trimmed to accommodate this new building. Two, he would lose the northwest prevailing wind. Three, he would lose privacy big time. · Explained that there are 16 windows on the back elevation. Fourteen (14) of those windows are 4 feet by 12 feet and two of them are 4 feet by 8 feet. · Declared that property values won't go up as a result but he believes it would be significantly going down. . Thanked staff for their assistance. Ms. Joan Veteran, Resident on Memory Lane: · Said that with this new building she will be confined to the inside of her house with the drapes drawn. · Explained that her entire yard would be completely exposed to this building. . Stated that property value will plummet. · Reported that they are on a fixed income and their security is invested in their home. . Asked the Commissioners to put themselves in her shoes before approving this building. Ms. Sandra Patel, Resident on McBain Avenue: · Said she is here representing herself and others. . Said that she is upset about this proposal. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 15 · Expressed concern about impacts on property values and expects to see a 10 to 20 percent depreciation of value as a result. . Pointed out a home is an investment. . Said that the five foot setback where a 10-foot setback is required is of concerned. · Added that windows will offer visual access to residential properties. The efforts made to mitigate concerns over these windows are not enough as any visual access is not acceptable. · Stated concern over noise impacts and visual obstructions to beautiful views lost. · Said that there is also a security concern over the potential for criminal activity in their backyard. · Suggested either a one-story building or having the building placed elsewhere on the lot. · Said that Pool, Patios and More did a wonderful job planning their site. · Assured that he is not opposed to the development of this lot, just not as proposed. · Said that a proposed two-story building here is not neighbor friendly. . Said she is angry and hopes that neighbor concerns are taken into consideration. Mr. Neil Linney, Resident on Memory Lane: . Said that he lives with his wife and two daughters. · Added that his own property does not directly adjoin this project site but he lives next door to the Patels and the Veterans. · Said that he opposes development as proposed as he has several concerns. · Stated that the proposed building is too massive for the surrounding homes. · Pointed out that residents view their backyards as private sanctuaries. · Added that he has a pool in his yard and that occupants of this new medical building would have views into his pool as there are windows across the whole back of property on both the first and second floors. · Said he prefers that they use clearstory windows with no visual access to the adjoining neighbors. . Reminded that there is no screening proposed and that screening responsibility should be on the developer. . Said that the site would be graded for drainage by three feet. · Said that there are encroachment issues on both the sides and rear of this project, which increases the mass of the building. . Said that he is a member of the Fire Department and could end up responding to a fire in this new building. · Cautioned that reduced setbacks leave no room for ladder rescues from the rear of the building. · Suggested that other options be investigated including underground parking with a single-story building; that no grading be done; that visual screening be provided for the residential properties; that the building be located closer to Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 16 Bascom and/or that clearstory windows be used at the rear of the building on both the first and second floors. Commissioner Francois asked if there are potential access problems from a fire fighting perspective and if the proper engine access is proposed. Mr. Neil Linney said that they always want more and wider access. Mr. Wayne Renshaw, Project Architect: · Gave an overview and history of this lot and the rational for this proposed development for an L-shaped lot that is narrow and with little frontage along Bascom Avenue, with an easement on one side and with the requirement for a minimum driveway width on one side. · Said that this is an un-developable lot until the back of the lot. · Said that although a 10 foot setback is required the maximum height for a potential building on this property is 75 feet. · Reminded that Central Fire looked at this project. · Pointed out that this is a fully sprinkled building. · Reported that they worked with the Planning Department since Day 1 and have provided 20 different development schemes. . Assured that this one is the best option. · Said that the design is intended to have a residential flare that includes low slope and overhangs rather than parapets. · Said that they want the neighbors to feel more of a residential feel than a commercial fill. · Reported that they spoke with neighbors previously and are surprised by many of the issues raised this evening. · Advised that they chose a medical office specifically to address issues on site. . Said that medical offices are destination businesses they operate between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Dental offices are dark in the evening. · Said that the dental chairs are facing the back of the building but located about 7 feet away from the windows. · Stated that this new building would help minimize noise coming from Bascom Avenue. · Assured that this is a good choice that minimizes impacts. Commissioner Doorley asked what the impact would be if they are not able to have a reduced rear setback from the 10-foot setback required. Mr. Wayne Renshaw said that the building depth becomes less desirable. He said that the ideal building width is 60 feet for a first floor and 40 feet for a second floor. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 17 Commissioner Alderete asked Mr. Wayne Renshaw to describe the fire turnaround requirements. Mr. Wayne Renshaw said that fire trucks must be able to get within 150 feet from all points of a building. He added that there are radius restrictions. Commissioner Alderete asked Mr. Wayne Renshaw if there is any wiggle room at all with this project and if the fire requirements take into account the potential for there to be cars parked all around the site. Mr. Wayne Renshaw said that the full parking lot is taken into account. The project is review by Central Fire and its engineers. He added that without meeting Fire requirements any project is a "no go." Commissioner Alderete said that having reduced setbacks for a building this size that is situated next to residences is a "no go" for him. Commissioner Doorley asked if fire access has to be on this parcel. Mr. Wayne Renshaw replied yes. He added that they had tried to obtain cross easement accessed but the other owner was not willing. Chair Rocha questioned the placement of the trash enclosure because it would result in garbage trucks accessing that enclosure in close proximity to residences. Mr. Wayne Renshaw pointed out that the adjacent property closest to the trash enclosure is a day care and not a residence. He added that the same turnaround used by Fire would be used for garbage collection access. He added that they could move the trash enclosure closure to Bascom. Mr. Tom Barbarito, Resident on Fewtrell Drive: · Said that he too lives near the proposed garbage dumpster site and he does not want to hear garbage pickup. · Said that he too has a pool in his yard. · Said that he cannot believe that a reduced setback is even possible. . Added that it is unacceptable. · Pointed out that these are large residential lots on which the owners enjoy using their private yards. . Said that he has lived on his property for 10 years. · Said that he does not want to have people staring at his family in their own yard. · Expressed concern over lost property values. . Asked "what if this was you?" · Stated that two-story is not proper for this lot. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 18 Ms. Stephanie Morris, Resident on Fewtrell Drive: . Stated her agreement with the other statements made. . Said that she met with Barry Mirkin. · Advised that she never saw a side elevation of the building and just realized that the impacts are greater than she had anticipated. . Pointed out that promised screening is not depicted on the current plans and that she had been promised three screening trees near her property. · Agreed that the trash enclosure should be relocated and that there are potential property value concerns. · Added that an increase in grade by three feet is of concern. . Stated that the developer should comply with setbacks. · Suggested that underground parking should be evaluated. Mr. Barry Mirkin, Applicant: . Said that he is the owner and developer of this site. · Stated that he spent a lot of time showing about 15 different potential configurations of buildings on site. Only a long narrow building would be possible if the building were located closer to Bascom. . Said that medical-dental uses are the least obtrusive use. · Said that the windows would have blinds on them and the dental chairs would be placed about 6 to 7 feet back from the windows. . Said that a few things have not been addressed. . Reminded that although there is a 75 foot maximum height allowed, they chose not to go there due to the impacts on the neighborhood. · Agreed that moving the garbage area closer to Bascom is no problem. · Informed that there used to be two office buildings on this lot. · Said that he consistently cleans up graffiti on site. . Pointed out that Mr. Barbarito has a two-story himself. · Said that he can appreciate that his neighbors have been there for a long time and assured that he wants to be a good neighbor. · Reiterated that he chose this use as the best use of the site. · Said that he has been working with the Planning Department since Day 1 . · Reminded that Fire has reviewed the site and given their approval. · Said that it is true that they want to be able to maximize the development of this site but they want a use that does not impact neighbors. · Said that he has met with neighbors regarding planting and is sorry that the promised landscaping is not included in this plan set. He assured that they would honor what they have promised the neighbors. Commissioner Doorley asked if anyone knows the history on the shape of this lot. Mr. Barry Mirkin said that he does not know for sure but was told that Mr. Husted once owned it. He is not sure how it was divided. He reminded that at one time Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 19 there were two two-story buildings in the 1960's and they were there until about 15 years ago. Mr. Clyde Coscarelli, Resident on McBain Avenue: · Said that he has resided in his home for 57 years. · Suggested that the proposed building be lowered to one floor or move it closer to Bascom Avenue. Ms. Sandra Patel: · Agreed that there was a two-story building but it was located closer to Der Weinerschnitzel. · Asked if the applicant had explored underground parking. · Pointed out that even if blinds are installed people will look out windows. If these windows are not necessary, they should use obscured glass. Mr. Wayne Renshaw: · Said that they chose the tenant mix because it helps reduce the impact on site. · Said that a standard office could be established here by rights without the need for a Use Permit as is required for medical office uses. · Pointed out that medical tenants stay in place for a long time as they invest a lot of money into preparing their space. · Advised that underground parking is far too expensive and not feasible. It would triple or quadruple the cost of the building. · Said that the grading is required because there is no storm drain sewer on Bascom. The nearest sewer is far so that an on-site system is needed for storm water. A French drain system will be installed around the site. Chair Rocha asked about the use of opaque windows. Mr. Wayne Renshaw said that the windows are not just for light but that people want to be able to see out. Chair Rocha closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.4. Commissioner Francois: · Said that the real problem he has is with the reduced setbacks proposed. · Said that he knows the challenges of the site but he also is sensitive to what the neighbors will endure. · Stated that a five-foot rear setback is not enough when a 10-foot is required. Commissioner Doorley: · Said that Bascom is a commercial lot and this is a lesser intensity development. It could be much higher. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 20 . Agreed that significant effort has been put into develop a minimally invasive project for that site. . Said that consensus is needed to support a Variance and that consensus is not here. · Said that drainage issues and contorted parking makes him step back and say there is too much here. · Cautioned that if the Commission says no here there is potential for a 75-foot high building option instead. Commissioner Alderete: · Said that he agreed with Commissioner Francois on the issue of setbacks. · Pointed out that when a lot is undeveloped for a long time folks get used to it being vacant. . Cautioned that this property owner has the right to develop his property within limits of the Code and what the Commission and/or Council will allow. · Said that he is not in favor of allowing reduced setbacks, especially rear setbacks. Commissioner Roseberry: · Said that there are limitations for this lot. · Agreed that people have gotten used to this lot being empty. · Expressed doubt that there is the potential to support a 75-foot high building on this property. · Recounted that Highway 85 was proposed for 35 years before it came. · Asked what could be built and what the setback requirements might be for a 75 foot high building. Planner Kimberly A. Brosseau said that minimum front and rear setbacks are 10 feet, the side setbacks five feet or half the wall height. She said that a finding of compatibility would have to be made to support a 75-foot high building and she is not so sure that finding could be made here. Commissioner Roseberry asked what else could be there. He pointed out that this applicant has put some thought into this proposed use to find a neighbor- friendly use that does not require late night use. He said he is still on the fence. Commissioner Ebner: . Asked if the applicant could go back to Fire for revised requirements. . Said that this proposal is very difficult. . Agreed that this applicant has been extremely sensitive to the neighbors. . Reminded that this is Bascom Avenue. · Said he is torn on this project and feels for everyone concerned. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 21 Commissioner Gibbons cautioned that Fire has pretty strict standards. She added that this building would be sprinklered. She asked staff if Variances are necessary. Planner Kimberly A. Brosseau said that the side setbacks are met. The rear setback is not a Variance but rather the Planning Commission has the authority to grant an exception if findings can be made to support that reduction. Commissioner Gibbons: · Suggested that with a ratio of parking to square footage of the building, an 8,000 square foot building with 40 parking is what is viable here. . Said that trees will be necessary for this long parking lot. . Stated that the proposal has everything possible on site with no physical gesture back from the applicant for maxing out. · Said this is one of the toughest sites that she has come across in 10 years. . Advised that she has looked at this proposal as objectively as she could. The conclusion she has reached is that this site needs to be developed less intensively with a single-story building and parking. · Opined that this is like trying to squeeze a basketball into a jug of water. · Said that use of this site is a valid consideration for the neighbors and this is an inappropriate project that she will not support. Commissioner Roseberry asked if the reduced rear setback is the only issue. Commissioner Gibbons replied no, there are many more. Commissioner Doorley agreed saying it might be more supportable if they were not compromising everything else. Commissioner Roseberry asked if offered a choice between compromising on a setback versus compromising on the parking provided, which would be supportable. He added that a dental tenant stays for 15 to 20 years. Commissioner Gibbons: . Listed her objections to include the project squeezing the limits allowed; the proposed 5-foot rear setback where 10-feet are required; the parking and the lack of landscaping. . Said that the real issue is that a smaller footprint is required to make the parking work. . Added that she thought the proposed building is too high. · Said that just because the Zoning Code allows up to a 75-foot high building does not mean that it would be appropriate for this site. Chair Rocha: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 22 · Stated that this is a difficult and challenging site due to the depth of this L- shaped parcel. · Suggested the ideal would have been to merge this parcel with the adjacent Tower site but that was not possible. · Said that placement of the trash bin could be overcome. · Agreed that this developer is entitled to develop his property and assured that there would be a development on this property some day. · Said that the biggest issue is the setback. · Said that short of trying to redesign this project, he would not support it as presented. Commissioner Francois said he is not opposed to the project if the applicant can comply with required setbacks. He said that a five-foot setback is very very close. He concluded that he will not support this project without the required setbacks. City Attorney William Seligmann helped revise the draft findings to make them support the denial of this project. Motion: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3819 DENYING a Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2007 -23) to allow the construction of a new 12,288 square foot, two-story medical building on a vacant parcel; and a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2007 -56) to allow the establishment of medical services (dental offices) on property owned by Mr. Barry Mirkin located at 1930 S. Bascom Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Ebner, Francois, Gibbons, Rocha and Roseberry None None None *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Jackie C. Young Lind, Acting Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: · Reported that Council granted an authorization to proceed with a General Plan Amendment for property located at 1670 Grace Avenue. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for June 26, 2007 Page 23 ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 10,2007. SUBMITTED BY: . h~nn. Recoro~m~ APPROVED BY: ATTEST: