Loading...
PC Min - 05/13/2008 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY MAY 13, 2008 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of May 13, 2008, was called to order at 7:34 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Roseberry and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Bob Roseberry Mark Ebner Bob Alderete George Doorley Gary Gairaud (@7:35 p.m.) Michael Rocha Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Elizabeth Gibbons Staff Present: Acting Director: Assistant Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Jackie C. Young Lind Steve Prosser William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Ebner, the adoption of the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of March 25, 2008, were CONTINUED to the next meeting as there was not a quorum of eligible Commissioners in attendance to approve them this evening. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 13, 2008 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications items. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Roseberry read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN2007 -43 (ZC) PLN2007 -44 (PD) PLN2007 -45 (TS) Mar, J. Continued Public Hearing (from the Planning Commission meeting of February 26, 2008) to consider the application of Mr. Jeff Mar, on behalf of Heritage Realty Group, for a Zone Change (PLN2007-43) from R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) to C-PD (Condominium-Planned Development); a Planned Development Permit (PLN2007- 44) to allow the construction of five new attached townhomes and a Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2007- 45) to allow the creation of five residential lots and one common lot on property owned by Heritage Realty Group located at 258 & 268 Union Avenue in a C-PD (Condominium-Planned Development) Zoning District. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Tentative City Council meeting date: June 3, 2008. Project Planner: Steve Prosser, Assistant Planner Mr. Steve Prosser, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: . Advised that on February 26, 2008, this Planning Commission held a public hearing on this proposed development. . Added that at this hearing the Commission expressed concerns that this project did not include a third parcel also owned by this developer. . Said that the Commission continued consideration of this project to a date uncertain to allow the applicant the opportunity to explore incorporated the third corner parcel, located at 250 Union Avenue, into this development . Explained that the applicant met with Planning and Public Works staff. At this meeting, Public Works staff confirmed the land dedication requirement if this corner parcel were to be redeveloped. . Pointed out that two preliminary schemes were provided by the applicant (Scheme A and Scheme B). Scheme A is a seven-unit project, which was determined by Fire to not be feasible. Scheme B was a six-unit project that the applicant finds to be economically non-feasible. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 13, 2008 Page 3 . Stated that the project was renoticed. . Reminded that the Zone Change includes changing from R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) and C-PD (Condominium-Planned Development) to PD (Planned Development) Zoning. . Said that the Tentative Subdivision Map creates five residential lots and one common lot. The applicant has been advised that they must have a common access lot rather than an easement. . Reported that the two parcels include approximately 16,000 square feet in area. They are located on the east side of Union Avenue between Apricot and West Valley Drive. Existing on the properties are one single-family residence on 258 Union Avenue and two single-family residences on 268 Union Avenue. . Described the architecture as consisting of simple traditional building forms using siding, composition shingle roofing in earth colors. There are second floor decks with trellises for private open space. A landscape plan includes significant vegetation. The arborist's report provides a tree protection plan for all on-site trees. . Said that the parking requirement is 3.5 spaces per unit with one of those being covered. The project provides 17, including seven covered and 10 uncovered. While this is one space short of the requirement, staff is recommending approval as submitted as one space is being used for a trash enclosure. . Recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and adopt resolutions recommending Council approval for a Zone Change, Planned Development Permit and Tentative Subdivision Map. . Said that while the City does not mandate lot consolidation, the Planning Commission strongly commented at the February 26th meeting that not incorporating the third parcel into this development leaves an undesirable pattern. Commissioner Ebner asked staff who attended the joint meeting with Public Works. Planner Steve Prosser replied that he participated in that meeting with Ed Arango and Michelle Quinney. Commissioner Ebner asked how long the meeting ran. Planner Steve Prosser replied about 15 minutes. Commissioner Ebner: . Reminded that this Planning Commission really wanted to see some discussion take place on the Public Work's requirement for dedications along Apricot for this third parcel (250 Union Avenue). . Pointed out that there was pretty strong discussion by this Commission that should have sent a strong message to have staff work with this applicant and negotiate. The point was to get everyone together. . Added that he wished that Public Works Director Bob Kass had participated in the meeting. He should have been there. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 13, 2008 Page 4 Planner Steve Prosser said that while it appears Public Works is clear on the need for the land dedication for reasons of consistency, expansion of Apricot is also not proposed in the near future if at all. Commissioner Ebner: . Expressed concern that there is the potential for a serious problem with cut-through traffic on Apricot were it ever to be widened. . Reiterated his disappointment that neither Bob Kass nor the applicant participated in the joint meeting with Public Works and Planning staff. Commissioner Alderete: . Said that both at the SARC meeting and the previous Planning Commission public hearing on this application, the key point preventing going forward was the Public Work's dedication. . Stressed the need to create a win-win situation and prevent the creation of an orphan parcel on the corner of Apricot and Union. . Stated that staff did not flesh out what this Commission wanted. There is no new information provided this time. Planner Steve Prosser: . Said that the setback issues are of higher concern. . Added that the third parcel could be included in the development but doing so would add one unit while increasing the requirement for a second fire access. . Stated that the applicant believes this is not economically feasible. . Advised that the site design is what is limiting, the applicant's decision of design rather than land consolidation. Commissioner Doorley asked to clarify that the alternate scheme would add one unit. He asked if any units were smaller. Acting Director Jackie C. Young Lind said that the additional unit would offer less square footage than the existing house on this corner property. Commissioner Doorley agreed that the applicant may feel economic problems but it appears they want to keep their design instead of doing a complete redesign of a project for the three parcels together. Planner Steve Prosser: . Said that this project is not even close to the area's high-density standard. Rather it represents more of a medium-density project. . Added that this is a high-quality project for that area and staff is recommending approval although the General Plan's land use designation would allow development at a higher density. Commissioner Doorley asked if the third parcel would have the same land dedication requirement if developed separately later on. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 13, 2008 Page 5 Planner Steve Prosser said that if a larger addition or redevelopment of the house at 250 Union Avenue were to be proposed the dedication requirement would be imposed. Commissioner Alderete asked staff what would be most logical outcome for this property at 250 Union Avenue if the proposed project for the adjacent two lots was allowed to proceed. Planner Steve Prosser replied either to remain a single-family residence or be developed into a duplex. Commissioner Alderete asked if the dedication would be imposed if the existing single- family residence is retained at 250 Union Avenue. Planner Steve Prosser replied yes, as the plan currently exists. Chair Roseberry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.1. Ms. Susan Deason, Resident on Apricot Avenue: . Said that she has the same concerns as before. . Stated that this project is too tall for this area. . Disagreed with the Negative Declaration's position that there are no scenic vista impacts as she loses her views of the Santa Cruz Mountains. . Expressed concern over potential loss of summer breezes and natural light. . Stated that the "orphan" house should go. It is in poor condition. The roof should be replaced. There is a couch on the porch. There are Code Enforcement violations on file with the City. This house should be demolished. Mr. Jeff Mar, Applicant, Heritage Realty Group: . Said that he is available for any questions. . Reported that he did actually participate in one of the meetings with Planning and Public Works staff. . Added that Public Works wants the street dedications and gave a number of reasons for that. . Expressed appreciation for the Commission's willingness to make this project bigger by use of the three lots. . Assured that they have thought carefully about the potential of doing so. . Admitted that they originally had wanted to utilize all three lots. Commissioner Doorley asked Mr. Jeff Mar to talk about the alternate schemes considered. He said that it appears there was never a broader redesign prepared. How was it looked at in a fresh way? Chair Roseberry asked Mr. Jeff Mar to include a time line to help this Commission understand his efforts. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 13, 2008 Page 6 Mr. Jeff Mar: · Explained that their original intent was to use all three lots. They came up with a number of schemes and received preliminary comments from staff. · Reported that they purchased the properties in 2003. . Said that the original proposed in 2004 was for cluster houses. · Advised that the issue of land dedication came up and they went with a two lot scheme that developed into this latest iteration. Commissioner Doorley said that the latest review didn't appear to reopen the entire issue of design. Mr. Jeff Mar agreed. He said that he felt the direction he received from this Commission was to focus on density. Commissioner Doorley: · Said the two driveway requirement appears to be an issue that is also keeping the third lot out of this equation. · Opined that there has been no really robust look at other design options. . Predicted that the blight at that corner will only get worse. Mr. Jeff Mar: . Assured that they would like to make that corner the best they can. . Reminded that their project has been in limbo since learning of the dedication requirements. . Said that their goal is to renovate the building on the corner lot. . Advised that other formerly single-family homes on Union that are located closer to Pruneyard have converted into office uses. . Pointed out that the corner lot looks a lot better than the two lots next to it. Commissioner Ebner asked Mr. Jeff Mar to identify how many units were considered when all three lots were being considered. Mr. Jeff Mar said with the housing cluster scheme they considered between seven and nine units in a couple of different configurations. He added that a non-podium product is limited to a two to three story building due to setbacks. Commissioner Ebner asked if more units and a better product would be possible without the dedications. Mr. Jeff Mar said it would not be better looking. Commissioner Ebner asked how about more consistent. Mr. Jeff Mar said yes. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 13, 2008 Page 7 Commissioner Rocha said that he disagreed with the finding in the staff report that this project helps create a "more desirable environment." Mr. Jeff Mar: · Said that there are currently obsolete homes on the parcels at 258 and 268 Union Avenue. The homes are old and small. · Added that the home at 250 Union is more current as it was remodeled approximately 20 years ago. . Said that he did not think the corner lot would become an "orphan" project. . Pointed out that they want to be able to sell their units and will make sure this corner property is viable. Commissioner Alderete asked Mr. Jeff Mar what could be done with the three lots together without the Public Works dedication requirement. Mr. Jeff Mar said that there is not a lot more density possible even without the street dedication because of the setbacks of 25 feet which is half of the lot width leaving a net gain of just 10 feet. He added that there is also the issue with the Fire Department second access requirement if the three lots are used. Chair Roseberry asked what if there were no dedication requirement and Scheme A could shift to the north leaving room for a driveway. Mr. Jeff Mar said that there could potentially be seven units. He again said that he appreciates the Planning Commission wanting to get a bigger project through. Chair Roseberry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.1. Commissioner Alderete: . Said he wanted to make a few comments. . Stated that they are in the same place as before the SARC and Planning Commission meeting. The land dedication requirement is the key component in this concern. . Stated that there appear to be competing policies that are at play here. At one end there is the Public Works policy with the goal of land dedication. Alternately, there is the General Plan policy that calls for the consolidation of adjacent parcels for development when possible and specifically to avoid the creation of "orphan" parcels. . Advised that he would not be supporting this project as it is and that he hopes there is a way to turn this around into a win-win situation. Commissioner Gairaud: . Apologized for arriving late. . Stated that he is torn on this project. . Explained that he became a Planning Commissioner to help with the vision of Campbell. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 13, 2008 Page 8 · Stated that he is not convinced that this is the best use for the property. · Opined that the General Plan is killing this developer on this project. Commissioner Doorley: · Said that the bottom line is that this Commission is not supporting this project before it. · Said that he finds it hard to believe that there is no profitable way to use three lots. · Advised that he supports the land dedication requirement as this is a part of how we grow as a city. · Added that he is not supportive of this project as it is now. · Said that this is a developable and attractive site. Commissioner Ebner: · Said that the concept of land dedications is important but not in this case. In this case, it is hurting development. · Pointed out that widening Apricot would cause the loss of many trees. · Added that with the busy thoroughfares on either end of Apricot, widening that street would lead to added traffic as the street is used as a cut-through. · Stated that in this particular case, there is no need to allow the dedication in this location due to the potential impact on that street. · Advised that he will not support this project. . Stated that the key to him is the requirement for land dedication. Commissioner Rocha: · Said that he concurred with Commissioner Ebner about the trees. · Stated that this project does not represent the highest or best use. It is not consistent with his view of Campbell. . Advised that he would not support this project. Chair Roseberry: . Said that good points have been brought up. · Pointed out that this owner is almost cursed by owning the third parcel. . Suggested that it is reasonable for this third property to be maintained as what it is. However, as long as it does stay the same Apricot will not be widened. . Said that the Commission is trying to help Public Works understand that they may not get or want Apricot as a widened street. · Reminded that these developers have been through a long process. . Reiterated that it is reasonable for this applicant to fix 250 Union Avenue and consider it a separate property. . Said that the developer could elect to sell anyone or all three of these parcels. Whoever buys them may also sell one or more. . Cautioned that not approving this project would not necessarily get the Commission what it wants. . Said that it might not be possible to convince Public Works against the dedication. . Said that he is not against this project and perhaps they will not get anything better. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 13, 2008 Page 9 Commissioner Alderete: . Reported that at the SARC meeting, they were unaware that the third parcel was owned by the same applicant. It was not common knowledge. . Reiterated that the hitch was the Public Works requirement. · Said that since all three parcels are owned by the same applicant, the Commission should seek to push the development of all three parcels. . Said that he prefers not to approve this project. . Stated that someone of a high level needs to sit with Public Works. Chair Roseberry cautioned that this Commission cannot force the developer to build a project he does not want to develop. He could elect to walk away instead. Commissioner Gairaud said that 20 years from now this corner lot would be looked at. Questioned what is the future for that lot? Commissioner Ebner: . Said that if the corner is not developed it would block the dedication unless eminent domain was imposed. . Said that this project should not be approved. . Added that someone needs to sit down with Public Works. . Questioned whether Public Works is being selective in imposing dedication requirements. . Advised that he is voting against this project. Commissioner Doorley asked that the record reflect that the tone and comments about Public Works and their requirements do not reflect the views of all members of this Planning Commission. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rocha, seconded by Commissioner Alderete, the Planning Commission took the following actions: 1. Adopted Resolution No. 3885 recommending that Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 2. Adopted Resolution No. 3886 recommending that Council deny a Zone Change (PLN2008-43) from R-3 to C-PD to PD; 3. Adopted Resolution No 3887 recommending that Council deny a Planned Development Permit (PLN2007-44) to allow the construction of five new attached townhomes; and 4. Adopted Resolution No. 3888 recommending that Council deny a Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2007-45) to allow the creation of five residential and one common lot on property owned by Heritage Realty Group located at 258 & 268 Union Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Ebner, Gairaud and Rocha NOES: Roseberry ABSENT: Gibbons Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 13, 2008 Page 10 ABSTAIN: None Chair Roseberry advised that this item would be considered by Council at its meeting of June 3, 2008. *** Chair Roseberry read Agenda Item NO.2 into the record as follows: 2. Text Amendments (NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE Staff NEXT MEETING ON MAY 27, 2008) Public Hearing to consider City-Initiated Text Amendments to make the following Code Amendments: Eliminate the requirement to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for bookstores over 10,000 square feet in size; Prohibit any use not in compliance with State or Federal Law in all Zoning Districts; Prohibit any business dedicated to the purpose of smoking tobacco on site; Modify Chapter 21.10.090, which includes rescinding the Zoning Designation M-1-A (Light Industrial - Adult Uses) and amending Title 5 of the Campbell Municipal Code to establish a permitting process for adult businesses. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: June 3, 2008. Project Planner: Jackie C. Young Lind, Acting Director Ms. Jackie C. Young Lind, Acting Director, presented the staff report as follows: · Reported that staff is requesting that this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting on June 10, 2008. Chair Roseberry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item NO.2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alderete, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO ITS MEETING OF JUNE 10,2008, consideration of City-Initiated Text Amendments to make Code Amendments. (6-0-1; Commissioner Gibbons was absent) *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Jackie C. Young Lind, Acting Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: · Reported that at the next Planning Commission meeting will include: a Site and Architectural Review Permit for a new residence on York Avenue; a revised project for the Lexmar mixed-use development at EI Caminito and Winchester Boulevard; Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for May 13, 2008 Page 11 review of the CIP 2009-2013; and the continued consideration of a Use Permit for a Day Care at 250 Virginia Avenue. · Added that an update study session on the Riverside Plaza mixed-use development would be scheduled. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. immediately to a Study Session and subsequently to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 27,2008. ~ SUBMITTED BY: Con . Shinn, Re~rding Secretary APPROVED BY: ~ ~ Bob Roseberry, Chair ATTEST: ling Secretary