Loading...
PC Min 03/28/1989PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MARCH 28, 1989 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session in the City Hall Council chambers, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners: Jay Perrine, Ronald Christ, Robert Stanton, James Walker, DuWayne Dickson, Bruce Olszewski; Planning Director Steve Piasecki, Principal Planner Phil Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney William Seligmann, and Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Commissioner Kasolas. Chairman Olszewski noted that Commissioner Kasolas' absence is excused for business reasons. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Walker, Stanton - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 14, 1989 be approved as submitted. Motion carried 6-0-1 (Commissioner Kasolas absent). COMMUNICATIONS Communications received pertained to specific agenda items. ORAL REQUESTS There were no Oral Requests. The set agenda proceeded. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no items on the Consent Calendar. PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 89-04 Continued public hearing to consider the Strong, R. application of Mr. Robert L. Strong for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a secondary living unit on property known as 1484 Capri Drive in an R-1-10 (Single Family Residential, less than 3.5 units per gross acre) Zoning District. Planning Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report of March 28, 1989, indicating that Staff is recommending a continuance in that the applicant has not yet submitted revised plans. The public hearing was opened. -2- Mr. Richard Zamorek, 1441 Walnut Dr., requested clarification on how two units could be allowed on the subject lot. Mr. Piasecki explained the "Secondary Living Unit" Ordinance relative to State law. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That the public hearing on UP 89-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 11, 1989. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1, Commissioner Kasolas absent). ~ ~ ~ PD 89-02 Public hearing to consider the application Saray, S. of Mr. Steve Saray for approval of a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of 4 townhomes on property known as 1430 W. Latimer Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Planning Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report of March 28, 1989, noting that Staff is of the opinion that the presented plan is reasonable; __ therefore, approval is recommended. Mr. Piasecki answered questions from the Commission regarding grade levels of adjacent properties; parking ratios; setbacks; and, Fire Department conditions. Commissioner Stanton reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee is recommending approval; however, it is suggested that the fencing plan indicate the use of stucco or masonry materials. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Steve Saray, applicant, addressed questions from the Commission regarding the building design and materials relative to the architecture blending with the neighborhood. Commissioner Dickson expressed concern with the appearance of a long, narrow driveway. Mr. Saray agreed to provide additional patterned concrete to break-up the driveway's appearance in front of building ~~1's garages. M/S: Stanton, Perrine - That the public hearing on PD 89-02 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1, with Commissioner Kasolas absent). M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the Planning Commission recommend that __._ the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared; and, that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 2585, -3- including findings and conditions indicated in Staff Report of March 28, 1989, recommending that the City Council approve PD 89-02 as redlined, and with the __ provision of additional patterned concrete in the driveway area. Motion carried with the followoing rol call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Stanton, Walker, Dickson, Olszewski None Kasolas. The Commission complimented the applicant on presenting his project at the low end of the density range and on the design of the project for this difficult site. ~ ~ ~c ZC 89-04 Public hearing to consider the application PD 89-04 of Mr. Steve Saray for approval of a Zone Saray, S. Change from R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) and R-1-10 (Single Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); and, approval of a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations,. and development schedule to allow construction of 7 townhomes on properties known as 636 & 650 Hacienda Ave. Planning Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report of March 28, 1989, noting that Staff is recommending approval. Mr. Piasecki answered questions from the Commission regarding the single family lot's dimensions and zoning; setbacks; and, allowable uses in the existing zoning districts. He noted that the Planned Development zoning would allow the townhomes to be sold as individual units and provide some expensive elements to upgrade the area (decorative wall, retention of mature trees; and a better intersection configuration). Commissioner Christ expressed concern about the size of the single family home in relation to the lot size, and the proposed sideyard setbacks for the structure. Commissioner Stanton reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee is recommending approval, with minor changes relative to the use of brick on the fence and roof materials to come back to Staff for approval. Chairman Olszewski indicated that it would be more appropriate for the revisions to be approved by the Site Committee. Commissioner Dickson asked how the R-1-10 lot, which appears to be non-conforming, could be developed without being included in a development such as this. City Attorney Seligman stated that the lot could be re-zoned to R-1-6 to bring it into conformance; ar, a variance from the 10,000 sq.ft. lot size could be requested. -4- Commissioner Walker noted the sensitivity of the proposed single family home's stepped down design. Chairman Olszewski noted a petition (attached hereto) from area residents opposing the "rezoning of the properties at 650 Hacienda Ave." The public hearing was opened. Mr. Greg Lenafelter, 1250 Capri Dr., opposed the development, citing opposition to re-zoning of properties in the area; the proposed two-story structures; increased traffic; unsafe driveway configurations and sight, distance visibility; inadequate parking on-site; additional people in the area and lack of yard space; architectural design and height of the structures are not compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. Lenafelter asked that, should the project be approved, the fence between his property and the development be 6' with a 1' lattice; that the front of the buildings be "dressed up" with wood trim around the windows; that the bedroom windows be raised on the single family home; that the fence be put up prior to construction; and, that the construction starting times be later in the morning because of the noise. Staff indicated that the proposal is toward the low end of the allowable density range; the 7 units will have only one driveway; and, the traffic impact is considered insignificant. The driveway onto Capri Dr. is considered safer than a driveway onto Hacienda Ave. would be. Mr. W. Wickner, 600 Wendell Dr., opposed the development, expressing his concern with the residents of the new unit parking on the neighboring streets; two-story homes Trot being appropriate for this area; the elimination of privacy; increased densities; and the location of the utility services. Mrs. Jeanna Lenafelter, 1250 Capri Dr., opposed the project, expressing concerns with traffic, driveway safety, density, lack of open space for children to play, and the size of the single family home in relation to the lot. Mr. Bruce Reid, 1509 Walnut Dr., reviewed the lot sizes in the area, noting that the average lot size is 16,000; and expressed his concern about the size of the single family lot on this site, the size of the home proposed, and the setbacks for the proposed single family home. Ms. Julie McDonald, 645 Wendell Dr., opposed any re-zoning, and expressed her concern with the size of the single family home being proposed. Ms. Margaret McMahon, 1280 Capri Dr., opposed the development because of traffic and the size of the single family home in relation to the other homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Richard Zamorek, 1441 Walnut Dr., opposed any zoning changes in the area. Mr. Vinit Kadaka, 1265 Capri Dr., opposed any changes in the area. -5- Commissioner Dickson explained that the density is not being changed; that a PD zoning is necessary to sell the townhomes as individual units; and, that 2-1/2 stories are allowed anywhere in the City. Commissioner Perrine noted his intent to move for approval, with the single family home going back to the Site Review Committee for additional setbacks and design revisions to blend better with the neighborhood. Commissioner Walker indicated that he would like to a better transition to the residential neighborhood, and would rather that revisions come back to the Commission. Commissioner Christ expressed concern that the single family lot does not meet the lot size in this area and the setbacks are not normal for an R-1 Zoning District. The PD zoning needs to provide better conditions than would be presented under the regular zoning. A home of over 2400 sq.ft. with a 3-car garage seems massive for this lot. Commissioner Christ preferred to see the single family home reduced in size and made more compatible with the neighborhood. He believed the townhome project to be much more desireable than what might be built under the R-M-S zoning. Commissioner Dickson noted that the single family home appears to be too dense a.structure for the single family neighborhood, and does not represent harmonious development with the neighborhood. Commissioner Perrine stated that the single family home appeared to be a concern to all the Commissioners. From a legal standpoint, someone must be allowed to build on this lot. The larger parcel is zoned R-M-S and apartments could be built there. The presented plan provides for individual home ownership and minimal driveway ingress/egress. M/S: Perrine, Walker - That the public hearing on ZC 89-04/PD 89-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 11, 1989. Motion carried 5-1-1 (Commissioner Stanton voting "no", and Commissioner Kasolas absent). Commissioner Christ suggested that a pedestrian access to the townhomes be provided for residents/guests who may park along Hacienda Ave. occasionally. Mr. Saray spoke regarding the uniqueness of the site relative to the two different zonings on it. He asked that the townhome project be recommended for approval so that it could move forward; and, that only the single family home portion of the application be continued. Commissioner Walker asked that revised plans address the transition of the single family home in residential-style more than size of the structure. Chairman Olszewski expressed concern with the compatibility of the single family unit with the neighborhood; recognized the design problem of trying to buffer the townhomes from the single family area and still blend with the neighborhood; felt it important that the Commission recognize that the applicant has presented a design which retains all the mature trees on the site; and, indicated his concern with splitt2.ng the approval process. ~ ~ ~ -6- The Commission recessed at 9:15 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m. * ~ MISCELLANEOUS Fencing Request Request of Mr. Jerry Paquin for deviation from fencing regulations on property known as 1008 Monica Lane in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Principal Planner Phil Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of March 28, 1989. Staff is recommending approval of the request for a lesser setback for fencing on the referenced property. This issue is before the Commission because the adjoining neighbors have not consented to the request. Chairman Olszewski asked about the existing landscaping along the fence line. Commissioner Christ asked about the fencing design and materials. Mr. Minaker, 331 Payne Ave., adjoining property owner, expressed concern that the fence not be extended more than 2 additional feet because of visibility problems from his driveway. M/S: Dickson, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt the _, following findings, and approve the request of Mr. Paquin for a lesser setback for fencing on 1008 Monica Lane. Motion carried 5-1-1 (Commissioner Walker voting "no", and Commissioner Kasolas absent). Findin~ts 1. The 9'8" setback would not impair pedestrian or vehicular safety. 2. The setback will result in a more desireable site layout because of the need for access around a swimming pool. 3. The setback will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, welfare, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such change or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. ~ ~ -7- SA 88-51 Yuen, E. Principal Planner Phil Sta Staff is recommending that removal of all other signs Continued signing request - Plaza Car Wash 1667 S. Bascom Ave. - C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Eford reviewed the Staff Report of March 28, 1989. the Commission approve signs ~~3 & 4i7 and require indicated in the report. City Attorney Bill Seligmann explained that signs 4~ 3 & 4~7 were exempt from the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, a denial of the application would be appropriate. Commissioner Christ thought that the application should be denied, otherwise the "Now Hiring" (sign ~~7) would not be temporary any longer in that it's painted on the fence. M/S: Stanton, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt findings (attached hereto), and deny SA 88-51. Motion carried 6-0-1 (Commissioner Kasolas absent). ~ ~ Referral Referral from City Council regarding initiation of amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to restrict and/or prohibit skateboard ramps in residential zones. Planning Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report of March 28, 1989. Staff is recommending that April 25, 1989 be set as the date for public hearing on this issue. M/S: Dickon, Stanton - That April 25, 1989 be set as the date for public hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to restrict and/or prohibit skateboard ramps in residential zoning districts. Motion carried 6-0-1 (Commissioner Kasolas absent). ~ ~ ~ Staff Report Discussion of Issues and Agenda for the Crockett Avenue Area. Principal Planner Phil Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of March 28, 1989. Staff is recommending that the Commission set the date of April 25, 1989, for a neighborhood meeting to discuss the Crocket Avenue Area. Commissioner Christ expressed concern with what is taking place in this area - the potential development of three lots on San Tomas Aquino Road, which leave a long, narrow lot between the subject development and a commercial area. The remaining lot will essentially be undevelvpable. Commissioner Christ felt that whole areas/blocks should be looked at for developrment, thereby producing better projects, Issues such as drugs, dogs, etc., cannot be addressed by the Commission; therefore, he. would ratlxer aggraach the problems in this area from a planning standpoint. -8- Chairman Olszewski noted that he and Commissioner Stanton were members of a subcommittee which met with the Mayor and Vice-Mayor. The general intent of this meeting is spelled out on page 1 of the Staff Report. The intent is for the Commission to provide a forum to receive public input. It would be the Chair's preference that the Planning Commission limit it's input and opinions at that meeting in order to allow the public the opportunity for input. The Council specifically asked the Commission not to take any formal action on the item. The information from the public would give Staff the opportunity to look at alternatives and provide direction at a later date. Commissioner Dickson felt that very clear guidelines must be set for such a hearing. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Chair and Staff investigate having the hearing on the 5th Tuesday of May or April 25, 1989. ~ ~ ~ REPORT FROM PLANNING DIRECTOR Report from Planning Director noted and filed. ~c*~ en TnTru~v~Tm There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. APPROVED: Bruce Olszewski Chairman ATTEST: Steve. Piasecki Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary ~~~~t., 3 ~~ ~9-~~ WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, STRONGLY OPPOSE THE RE-ZOIVING OF THE PROPERTIES at. 650 HA~.IENDA AVENUE, CAMPBELL,CA. WE ASK THAT THE RE-ZONING BE DENIED DUE TO THE EFFECTS IT WILL HAVE ON: 1. INCREASED TRAFFIC 2. PARKING 3. INCREASED NOISE 4. UNSAFE DRIVEWAY 5. NO ROOM FOR KIDS TO PLAY ~~-~~ ~~~ ~,~ WILL LOtfSE NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE & INTEGRITY a. HOUSE T00 BIG FOR SIZE OF LOT SIGNATURE ADDRESS ~~:o ~~. ~~ ~ r-. -~ ;,~~~~ ~-. ~7. ~. ! C~. !3. , E % ~ } Ci 5 3 3~ ~ ~°,et ~ urz ~~~ esz ~.~ ~.~.~ ji ~~ WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, STRONGLY OPPOSE THE RE-ZONING OF THE PROPERTIES at 650 HACIENDA AVENUE, CAMPBELL,CA. WE ASK THAT THE RE-ZONING BE DENIED DUE TO THE EFFECTS IT WILL HAVE ON: 1. INCREASED TRAFFIC 2. PARKING 3. INCREASED NOISE 4. UNSAFE DRIVEWAY 5. NO ROOM FOR KIDS TO PLAY 6. WILL LOSE NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE & INTEGRITY a. HOUSE T00 BIG FOR SIZE OF LOT SIGNATURE ~~-. I / i~ ~ i, //Il ~ i1 i1~ ~~ ~ . F L ~• ~ ~.~ - , ..~' // f ~, ~ Yi c 7~~ C~ / _ ~ _ LJ~. ~ ~ 11 Z2 ?,. ., Z5. C 1J ~ 1.-l ADDRESS n ~/ ~ ~ ~% / / , ~ 1 ~ 1~ (l% ~ I ~~ 1~~ S ~~~z„ ~~.~ -~~ WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, STRONGLY OPPOSE THE RE-ZONING OF THE PROPERTIES at 650 HACIENDA AVENUE, CAMPBELL,CA. WE ASK THAT THE RE-ZONING BE DENIED DUE TO THE EFFECTS IT-WILL HAVE ON: 1. INCREASED TRAFFIC 2. PARKING 3. INCREASED NOISE 4. UNSAFE DRIVEWAY 5. NO ROOM FOR KIDS TO PLAY 6. WILL LO~QSE NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE & INTEGRITY a. HOUSE T00 BIG FOR SIZE OF LOT SIGNATURE i ADDRESS /z~~ ~~ .~~ ~~ //~3 ~~~~ 3 4~ 3~, -~ C ~ t ,3~, z I~r--~ ~~.- ~~ /~ ~~ i ~ ~3 ~~ ~~~t~f~'~} Gf. WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, STRONGLY OPPOSE THE RE-ZONING OF THE PROPERTIES at 650 HACIENDA AVENUE, CAMPBELL,CA. WE ASK THAT THE RE-ZONING BE ~~~~ DENIED DUE TO THE EFFECTS IT WILL HAVE ON: 1. INCREASED TRAFFIC 2. PARKING 3. INCREASED NOISE 4. UNSAFE DRIVEWAY 5. NO ROOM FOR KIDS TO PLAY 6. WILL LOSE NEIGHBORHOOD APPEARANCE & INTEGRITY a. HOUSE T00 BIG FOR SIZE OF LOT SIGNATURE ~. L. _ , - /~ ~ ~ ~ -0~ ~r i \ (~a ~ 1~9.~; ~/ j1 ADDRESS ~~_~ ~~~~~~~~ ~p~~ ~~(~ ~~~~ ,~--Y /lam ,, i.3 ~ o (~~~ ~ , ~ ~ T ~~~~ ~ ~~1 ~ ~~ n~7 V ~~ ~ ~ ~- s ~ C ~~ ~~~ 4Q ~• ~'. ~~ ~~ .~ P ~_~ Wi=n 5~ . RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: SA 88-51 APPLICANT: YUEN, E. SITE ADDRESS: 1667 S. BASCOM AVENUE P.C. MTG: 3-28-89 1. The use is adequately identified with the approved free-standing and wall sign. 2. Approval of 5 signs along this fence element presents a distracting and cluttered appearance to this project. 3. The number of requested signs exceeds the standards set forth in Section 21.53.090 of the Sign Ordinance. 4. Sign #3 indicates the business address; and Sign ~~7 reads, "Now Hiring," used on a temporary basis. Both of these signs are exempt from the sign regulations in that they are directional or temporary in character.