Loading...
PC Min 01/13/2004CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY JANUARY 13, 2004 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 2004, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Doorley and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: George Doorley Bob Alderete Tom Francois Michael Rocha Bob Roseberry Commissioners Absent: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Elizabeth Gibbons Joseph D. Hernandez Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Sharon Fierro Geoff I. Bradley William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission minutes of December 9, 2003, were approved as submitted. (5-0-2; Commissioners Gibbons and Hernandez were absent) COMMUNICATIONS 1. Correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 3. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Chair Doorley advised staff has proposed the continuance of Agenda Item No. 2 to the meeting of February 10, 2004, with the applicant's concurrence. He read the project description into the record as follows: Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 2004 Page 2 PLN2002-138 (ZC) PLN2002-139 (PM) PLN2002-140 (PD) PLN2002- 141(TRP) Oldham, T. Public Hearing to consider the applications of Mr. Timothy Oldham for the following development of property owned by Mr. Timothy Oldham located at 1396 W. Latimer Avenue in an R-2-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District Zone Change (PLN2002-138) from R-2-S (Multiple Family Residential) to P-D (Planned Development); · Tentative Parcel Map (PLN2002-139) to create four townhome lots and one common drive; · Planned Development Permit (PLN2002-140) to allow the construction of four townhome units; and · Tree Removal Permit (PLN2002-141) to allow the removal of one walnut tree. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Chair Doorley opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: On motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the project at 1396 W. Latimer Avenue to its meeting of February 10, 2004. (5-0-2; Commissioners Gibbons and Hernandez were absent) ORAL REQUESTS Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber, 1509 Walnut Drive, Campbell: · Said that although she is not certain if the Commission is the proper body to consider this issue, she wanted to raise concerns over the two-hour parking restrictions in Downtown Campbell. Explained that she and several of her friends over the years have regularly attended various craft type classes in the Downtown after which they like to patronize the shops followed by a leisurely lunch. These activities take more than two hours. · Reported that following a recent class, eight of the attendees found tickets on their cars. These folks have declared their intent to never go back. · Pointed out that the parking in the garage is also restricted to two hours. · Asked that the City re-evaluate the two-hour parking limitation and perhaps consider extending that to three-hours, a time more conducive to completing a reasonable amount of business in the Downtown. · Stated that the Town of Los Gatos has the three-hour limitation. · Suggested that the City also consider increasing the amount of unlimited parking. Chair Doorley asked staff whether the Commission is the appropriate venue for this matter. Director Sharon Fierro replied no. She added that she would follow up with Ms. Kiehtreiber. Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 2004 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING Chair Doorley read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. PLN2003-151 Dey, T. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Tom Dey, on behalf of AT&T Wireless Services of California, for an Extension of Approval (PLN2003-151) of a previously approved antenna installation to allow the continued use on property owned by Linman Realty Group located at 1300 White Oaks Road in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Mr. Geoff I. Bradley, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicant is seeking the extension of a previous approval for nine roof- mounted antennas. · Described the site as being south of Camden Avenue with surrounding uses including a U- Haul business, Highway 17 and homes. · Said that the building on which the antennas are situated is a two-story Research and Development building. · Added that there are two wireless providers located on this property, PacBell and AT&T. · Stated that the antennas under discussion for renewal this evening, for AT&T, are well stealthed. AT&T obtained the original approval in 1998. · Said that staff finds this installation to be stealth and compatible with the area. · Advised that there was no SARC review as there were no exterior changes. · Recommended approval and advised that the applicant is available for any questions. Chair Doorley opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Tom Dey, Applicant and Representative for AT&T: · Said that they applied for an extension upon receipt of notice of pending expiration of their approval. · Asked the Commission to grant a five-year extension of approval. Chair Doorley closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Alderete, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3533 approving an Extension of Approval (PLN2003-151) of a previously approved antenna installation (AT&T) to allow the continued use on property owned by Linman Realty Group located at 1300 White Oaks Road in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Hernandez and Gibbons ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 2004 Page 4 Chair Doorley reminded that this action is final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Chair Doorley read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record. 3. PLN2003-145 Divittorio, R. Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Roy Divittorio for a Modification (PLN2003-145) to a previously approved Site and Architectural Review Permit to change the approved roof design on property owned by Roy and Adrienne Divittorio located at 1512 Walnut Drive in an R-l-10 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. This project was previously deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Mr. Geoff I. Bradley, · Advised that the Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: applicant is requesting to modify the approved roof design in two locations of this new house, one located over the second story entry and the second located over the garage. · Reminded that the original application first came before the Commission on April 9, 2002, and was continued to the meeting of May 14, 2002, to allow the applicant to modify his project based upon feedback given by the Commission and members of the community. · Said that the project was brought back with revisions that included more hip than gable roof lines. At that time, the Commission found that the changes reduced the appearance of mass and approved the project. · Stated that the house, located within the San Tomas Neighborhood, is currently under construction and the applicant has converted two hips into gables. · Said that while staff believes the project meets the requirements of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan, these new changes do not meet the intent of the plan. · Recommended denial of this request for Modification due to inconsistencies with the General Plan and San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. · Said that SARC reviewed this proposal at its meeting of December 9, 2003, and he would allow the SARC member to report on their actions. Commissioner Rocha asked if the applicant came forward to seek approval of these changes. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied yes, during the framing stage. One of the gables, the smaller one located over the entry, had been executed and the other has since been framed. Chair Doorley provided the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC reviewed this application on December 9th and decided to forward it Commission without recommendation. to the Chair Doorley opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 3. Ms. Ellen Dorsa, 1573 Walnut Drive, Campbell: Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 2004 Page 5 · Said that her home is diagonally across the street from the Divittorio home. · Reminded the Commission that when this project first started, the Divittorios stated that they would be there forever while others in the neighborhood would go within five years. · Pointed out that she waited eight years for a house to open up on this street. · Said that the Divittorios never made an effort to meet with the neighbors. · Stated that at the time of original review of this project, she felt that a monster house such as this one does not fit in this neighborhood, even with the proposed changes. · Pointed out that almost every house in this neighborhood that has been remodeled has been single-story. Those owners that have remodeled into two-stories have worked to limit the impacts. · Described the Divittorio home as a minimum setback, in your face huge. · Expressed her belief that the Divittorios don't actually plan to stay long on Walnut while the neighborhood will live with this house forever. · Said that she is losing privacy with this house. · Added that the yard she has planted over five years in order to achieve privacy will now have to start over. · Questioned the height of the home under construction in light of the fact that it was regraded. · Declared that this is a beautiful house for Los Altos Hills but not for this simple neighborhood. Ms. Analise Wrightson, 1570 Walnut Drive, Campbell: · Advised that her home is one house down from the Divittorio home. · Stated that the roofline was already decided upon and that she thought it was a done deal. · Asked that the Commission deny this application. · Pointed out that this is already a large home and that the Divittorios were originally asked to lessen the effect. Adding these gables is not compliant with that request. · Stated that the Divittorios have business influence in Campbell and stated her belief that the City will not let that influences its decision. · Asked the Commission to stick to its original decisions. · Stated this is a waste of time and that the Divittorios should have appealed the original decision in a timely manner. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber, 1509 Walnut Drive, Campbell: · Reminded the Commission that in 2002, the neighborhood was told by Divittorio that it should be grateful to have this large house in their neighborhood, increasing property values. · Agreed that this will be an attractive home but huge and overwhelming for this neighborhood. · Displayed pictures of homes on the block to demonstrate that the neighborhood is not some slum but rather is attractive. There are beautiful homes with owners who take a lot of pride in and care of their homes. · Advised out that Ridgecrest Group recently built three homes in the neighborhood. The developer really worked with all of the neighbors. While these are big homes, you don't get that impression. Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 2004 Page 6 · Pointed out in a photograph the fact that the living room at the Divittorio home overlooks the neighboring house, despite a six-foot high fence separating the two houses. · Said that at the time of original hearing, the City was celebrating its 50t~ Anniversary of its founding. · Asked the Commission to make sure that new homes show respect for the community and its values. This can be accomplished by working together. · Asked the Commission to deny this request. Mr. Peter Kiehtreiber, 1509 Walnut Drive, Campbell: · Questioned what's going on here since a year and a half ago the Planning Commission looked at this house, the neighbors complained and staff made recommendations to resolve the issues that were raised. The Commission then imposed changes, the applicant agreed to them and did not subsequently appeal the final decision of the Commission. Divittorio Construction now wants to undo the Planning Commission's changes. · Stated that this sends the signal that final Planning Commission decisions are not final. · Asked that this request be denied. · Said that as it is, this home is too big. Changing it as requested would make it appear even bigger. · Said he is not asking the Commission to impose an untold hardship on the applicant but rather to uphold its actions. · Pointed out that the smaller gable has already been constructed. This applicant is so sure that his request would be approved. Ms. Janet Rinck, 661 W. Parr Avenue, Campbell: · Stated her agreement with Audrey and Peter Kiehtreibers' comments that this will be a beautiful house that does not fit in this neighborhood. · Explained that she moved into the neighborhood in May 2003 and that she is here to stay. · Expressed her opinion that the scale of this house is pretty large. Mr. Roy Divittorio, Applicant and Owner, 1512 Walnut Drive, Campbell: · Reminded that the Commission considered his project in April and May of 2002. At the April meeting, it looked as if three Commissioners were in favor of his original plan while four wanted changes. Therefore he did make changes by lowering his living room ceiling, taking out windows and eliminating gables. · Pointed out that arched windows usually don't have hips over them and that is why a gable is needed there. · Said that his reason for this requested change is that aesthetically the house would look more balanced. It will look better. · Stated that he knows that the house looks big, it is big. The second story is already there. · Said that he has heard from many people that gables are no big deal and should be allowed. · Advised that the grading was surveyed and approved. · Said that while the house may look bigger with the gables, it will also look better and more balanced. The gables will not make it look that much bigger. · Said that while his neighbors may think he will sell this house soon, he does not plan to do so. The project is costing him in both time and money to make these changes. · Explained that if he has to look at these hip roofs over the next 30 years, it will bother him. Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 2004 Page 7 · Agreed that people in the area will either hate or love this house. For everyone who does not like it, there are others who do. · Stated, this is my home. Why not go my way. Commissioner Francois asked Mr. Roy Divittorio the height differences between using a hip versus gable roof. Mr. Roy Divittorio replied that they are the exact same height and slope up to the same peak. The gables do not add height. Chair Doorley asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Commission specifically. No one came forward. Chair Doorley closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Alderete: · Stated that this project appears to meet the STANP requirements but not the subjective criteria. · Said that the Commission is rehearing some of the same items originally considered and that the issue under consideration tonight is two gables versus two hip roofs. · Asked staff to explain why this change swings the appearance of this home into not being in compliance with the subjective criteria of the STANP. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley: · Demonstrated the difference in impact by showing a slide of the existing gable framing over the garage that is covered in a blue tarp with the actual approved hip roof framed below the tarp. · Pointed out that the existing hip roof is visible below the tarp and slopes up to the second floor. The framed and tarped gable roof is clearly larger in scale and mass as the gable element is higher closer to the front property line in comparison to the maximum height of the hip being located further back at the start of the second story, sloping downward toward the front of the house and property line. · Said that a hip roof has a lower profile and a gable is a more prominent element. A change of three gables from the original design significantly reduced the massing of this home when this project was originally approved. Commissioner Alderete asked if having the minimum front yard setback also increases the impact of the hip versus gable as far as appearance of mass. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied yes one could say the massing would be less visible with a 100-foot front yard setback. However, 25 feet is the largest minimum front yard setback standard in the City. Commissioner Alderete: · Said that when approving the original plan, they were working off drawings. structure has been framed. Now the Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 2004 Page 8 · Added that now it is more difficult to see the appearance of mass. However, with the framing and blue tarp, it looks to him that the hip roof is less massive than gables. Chair Doodey: · Said he wanted to explain further what transpired at SARC, who forwarded this application without recommendation. · Explained that this action was not the result of having no opinion. Rather, since seven Commissioners with lots of compromises approved this project, SARC did not feel that it was right to make a recommendation with just the involvement of two Commissioners. Commissioner Roseberry: · Thanked Chair Doorley for the clarification on SARC's actions, as this was a question that he had. · Said that it appears this project meets the metrics of the STANP and that the applicant has come asking for a change. · Said that there have been poor neighbor relations in this situation and the applicant seems more to be seeking forgiveness than permission. · Said that the issues of whether the Divittorios will keep or sell this home are irrelevant as is the level of frustration of Mr. Divittorio. · Stated that this is a changing street with large lots. There are few areas that a house of this scale could be constructed. · Added that this is an architectural detail and does not make this house look worse with gables. Commissioner Francois: · Advised that he spent 20 minutes today looking at this house. · Agreed that the gable does give the house balance. · Pointed out that there are huge homes just two blocks north and that the Divittorio project is not much bigger. The house on Chapman and Walnut is a compound compared, it's huge. · Agreed that this is not a slum neighborhood. · Declared that no one on the Commission would roll over for a contractor simply because he does business in town. Each application is considered on a case-by-case basis with integrity. · Said this project appears to fall within the guidelines of the STANP and that the gables do appear to add balance to this home. Commissioner Rocha: · Agreed that there are two-story homes on this street, including the large one at Chapman and Walnut, that are out of scale with the single story homes on the street. · Restated Commissioner Francois' comments that the Commission on a case-by-case scenario considers each project and that the Commission does not need to be lectured on what its role is and should be. · Added that they spend as much time as possible on these things and encourage interested citizens to consider applying for Planning Commission appointment when there are openings. Planning Commission Minutes of January 13, 2004 Page 9 · Said that he feels that the applicant should conform to the approved project and will support staff's recommendation to deny. · Advised that he was not a part of the Commission that granted the original approval. Chair Doorley: · Said that he was on the Commission at that time and that the rights of the applicant and community were considered. · Added that the issue of hip versus gable was talked about greatly. · Advised that his opinion has not changed and that he too supports staff's recommendation to deny. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alderete, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3534 denying a Modification (PLN2003-145) to a previously approved Site and Architectural Review Permit to change the approved roof design on property owned by Roy and Adrienne Divittorio located at 1512 Walnut Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley and Rocha NOES: Francois and Roseberry ABSENT: Gibbons and Hernandez ABSTAIN: None Chair Doorley reminded that this action is final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: · Advised that at its last meeting, Council authorized the abatement of Hazardous Vegetation, also known as weeds. · Announced that there are two items set for the next meeting with a Study Session following. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. to a Study Session immediately following and thereafter to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 27, 2004. SUBMITTED BY: Corinhe A. Sh~Rec,or0m~Secretary APPROVED BY: c~~.-~'i,f ~ Ge~i~ge Doorley, Chair Sharon Fierro, Secretary