Loading...
PC Min 03/14/19891 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MARCH 14, 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: George Kasolas, 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 None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Dickson, Stanton That the Planning Commission minutes of the February 28, 1989 meeting be approved with the following changes: Pg. 2, Para. 2 - change "offended" to "confused". Page 3, Para. 10 - delete "...and the City Council would like to see improved." Page 7, Vote on Motion - should read "Motion passed 4-3-0). Pg. 9, delete last Para. - "The Chairman suggested.." Motion to approved minutes carried unanimously (7-0-0). COMMUNICATIONS Communications received pertained to specific agenda items. ORAL REQUESTS Chairman Olszewski asked if any one wished to address the Commission regarding an item that was not agendized. Commissioner Stanton asked that Staff agendize the matter of compensation for advisors to the Site & Architectural Review Committee. Planning Director Piasecki indicated that Staff is looking at alternatives fooor advisors and/or compensation, and will keep the Commission apprised. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items for discussion. ~ ~ ~ -2- ARCHITECTURAL APPRQVALS M 88-09 The continued application of Mr. John Camarena, J. Camarena for approval of a modification to allow the construction of a mansard roof on an existing drive-in restaurant located on property known as 2255 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Planning Director Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report of March 14, 1989, noting that revised plans have not been received on this item; therefore, Staff is recommending denial without prejudice to remove it from the agenda. Brief discussion ensued regarding procedural concerns with removing applications from the agenda. Staff is investigating the possibility of not agendizing items which are indicated for removal at the request of the applicant. The Commission indicated the desire to be informed of any suggested policy change. M/S: Walker, Dickson - That the Planning Commission deny M 88-09 without prejudice in order that it may be removed from the agenda. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 89-03 Public hearing to consider the application of Loft Catering The Loft Catering for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow an off-sale beer and wine liquor license in conjunction with a catering business on property known as 2081 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of March 14, 1989, noting that Staff is recommending approval of this use permit in conjunction with a catering business. Commissioner Walker asked if this business also served food on the premises. Mr. Stafford indicated that Staff's understanding is that all food is delivered off-premises. Commissioner Dickson asked what criteria was used to determine if there were too many liquor-related uses in an area; and, if there were any statistics indicating the relationship to off-sale licenses and use of alcohol in vehicles. Commissioner Dickson noted that he is bringing these questions up because he felt that the use permit procedure is not what the Council intended for liquor-related uses; and, answers to these types of questions were needed •-- for him to make a decision on these types of requests. ~ Mr. Stafford respcm8e~€ that there is no established criteria relating to how many uses in an area is too many, nor statistics as indicated by Commissioner Dickson. However, this issue will be a topic of discussion for the Study Session on March 20, 1989. -3- Chairman Olszewski opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. No one wished to speak at this time. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That the public hearing on UP 89-03 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Perrine, Walker - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2586 approving UP 89-03, including findings and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of March 14, 1989. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: Discussion on motion Commissioner Dickson opposed the motion, noting that he did not feel comfortable without the criteria indicated in his earlier discussion. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Stanton, Walker, Olszewski NOES: Commissioners: Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: None. * ~ ~ UP 89-04 Public hearing to consider the application of Strong, R. Mr. Robert L. Strong for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a secondary living unit on property known as 1484 Capri Dr. in an R-1-10 (Single Family Residential, less than 3.5 units per gross acre) Zoning District. Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of March 14, 1989, noting that Staff is recommending approval of this application. Discussion ensued regarding the proposed building materials; the adjacent house in relation to the proposed driveway; the requirements of the State Law pertaining to secondary living units; the number of allowable accessory structures on a site; the method used for calculating the footprint of the proposed unit; the provision of a carport for the secondary unit and it's location in relation to the adjacent property, and the possibility of incorporating the carport into the existing accessory building/garage; the seemingly extensive driveway area to access the secondary unit; the percentage of lot coverage; and, concerns about the secondary unit becoming larger by enclosing the carport or porch area. Commissioner Stanton reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee is also recommending approval, as per Staff's recommendation; and, that the applicant has agreed to provide asphalt far the driveway area. Chairman Olszewski opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. -4- Mr. Bruce Reid, 1509 Walnut Drive, expressed concerns regarding the approval of "variances" on large lots, thereby increasing the density; the proposed fencing, and if he would be required to participate in the cost; the possibility of a future lot split; future enlargement of the secondary structure; possibility of a second story on the unit in the future because of the provided 8 foot setback; invasion of his privacy because of the possibility of a subdeck on the carport area in the future; the setback of this structure, when the average setback in the area is 55 feet; and, bringing the property into conformance with the existing zoning codes. City Attorney Seligman noted that this request is technically not a variance; and, that the State mandates that these types of units be allowed within certain R-1 zoning districts. The City can only work at minimizing the impact. Mr. Toborek, 1441 Capri Drive, questioned the proposed porch relative to living space calculations; the septic system on the site; and the setbacks of the primary dwelling unit. Mr. Stafford indicated that the fencing is addressed in the conditions of approval; the septic system is under the jurisdiction of the West Valley Sanitation District; any additional work on the site would require a building permit and/or review by the Planning Commission; the porch area is not included in the 640 sq.ft. living space calculation; and, the proposed unit exceeds the required setbacks. Commissioner Dickson asked that the word "etc." be deleted from Condition 4 addressing utilities. No one else wished to speak at this time. M/S: Walker, Stanton - M/S: Walker, Stanton - Discussion on motion That the public hearing on UP 89-04 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). That the Planning Commission approve UP 89-04, including the findings and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of March 14, 1989. Commissioner Christ indicated his concern with the amount of pavement on the side of the property and the location of the carport in relation to the secondary unit, noting that it would be better if the unit was behind the garage structure and the pavement ended at that point. Vehicles driving all the way to the rear of the site would be a nuisance to the neighbors. Commissioner Dickson opposed the motion, noting his concern with the long, narrow driveway and the attached carport space. He felt that this proposal was not harmonious with the neighborhood. Commissioner Walker supported the motion; however, he expressed his concern with the fencing situation. Amendment to motion Commissioner Walker asked that the motion be amended to require the rear fence to be a minimum height of 7 feet. -5- Discussion ensued regarding engineering factors of fencing heights, the use of landscaping to ensure privacy, and the need for building permits for fencing over 6 feet. Commissioner Stanton indicated that he could not support the proposed amendment as friendly in that the proposal would result in additional cost to the bu;_lder. Discussion of motion Chairman Olszewski opposed the motion, noting his dissatisfaction with the driveway going to the accessory building and the provision of a garage on the accessory building. He felt that this was inappropriate without the creation of a flag lot, and indicated that a continuance might be appropriate. Commissioner Perrine concurred with Chairman Olszewski, noting his concern with the driveway. Withdrawal of second Commissioner Stanton withdrew his second from the motion for approval. Motion dies for lack of a second. M/S: Perrine, Christ - M/S: Perrine, Christ - Discussion on motion That the public hearing on UP 89-04 be reopened. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). That the public hearing on UP 89-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 1989, to give the applicant an opportunity to redesign the driveway and parking for the secondary living unit as per discussion. Mr. Jerry Strong, representing the applicant, concurred with the continuance. Commissioner Perrine stated that he would be comfortable approving the application subject to the redlined plans coming back to the Planning Director for approval. Commissioner Walker asked Mr. Strong about providing additional landscaping and a higher than normal fence in the rear for privacy screening. Commissioner Perrine withdrew his motion for a continuance. Commissioner Christ stated his preference for a continuance, noting that he did not wish to redesign plans during the meeting. Motion for continuance dies for lack of a second. -6- M/S: Christ, Kasolas - That the public hearing on UP 89-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 1989. Discussion on motion Commissioner Kasolas noted that he was not comfortable with changing the presented plans during the meeting, especially since the applicant was not present. Commissioner Stanton indicated that Staff is aware of the Commission's concern, as expressed this evening, and the proposed changes could be handled at Staff level. Commissioner Kasolas stated that referring issues to Staff does not give the public an opportunity to respond. Vote on motion to continue Motion for continuance carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Dickson, Olszewski NOES: Commissioners: Stanton, Walker ABSENT: Commissioners: None. * ~ ~ The Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:00 a.m. ~ ~ PD 89-03 Public hearing to consider the application Vindasius, A. of Mr. Al Vindasius for approval of a Planned Development Permit and approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of 8 townhomes on properties known as 107, 119, and 129 E. Rincon Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Medium Density Residential, 14-20 units per gross acre) Zoning District. Planning Director Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report of March 14, 1989, and noted a letter (attached hereto) from Leonard and Pamela Ruggieri. The Site and Architectural Review Committee is asking that two 36" box trees be provided as replacement trees on the site. Additionally, the applicant has been asked to provide careful handling of pavement treatment relative to a large, off-site, pepper tree to the rear of the subject site. Staff has asked the applicant to look at the driveway aprons; however, this is not an isssue for denial, and could be addressed with CC&R's. Staff is of the opinion that the presented plan. is re~asan:able overall and is recommending approval subject to minimal redlining addressing parking and fencing location. -7- Discussion ensued regarding the percentage of on-site landscaping; the type of mitigation measures to provide for the health of the pepper tree on the adjacent property; the percentage of building coverage on the lot; the proposed floor plans relative to number of bedrooms; the configuration of the subject lots; the zoning in the area; setbacks of the proposed structures; and, parking requirements relative to recently discussed Council Policy. Commissioner Stanton reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee expressed concerns about the pepper tree on the adjacent lot; is of the opinion that the project will upgrade the area; and, is recommending approval. Chairman Olszewski opened the public hearing. Mr. Ron Dick, Architect, 307 Orchard City Drive, stated that the applicant would address the needs of the pepper tree under discussion; and, would like to keep the parking ratio as proposed in order to provide for additional trees in the driveway area. Mr. Alan Wheeler, 97 E. Rincon Ave., expressed concern about the fence height in relation to structure setbacks on his property; privacy issues relative to windows overlooking his back yard; that his home is set back only 18 inches from the property line; fire safety of structures and setbacks; light and air for his home; parking if garages in townhomes are not used; design concerns in the the area is basically bungalow styles - not Victorian; traffic on E. Rincon; preservation of historic structures in the neighborhood; and, the density of the proposed project. Ms. Pat Alford, 212 E. Rincon Ave., expressed concern with the integrity of the neighborhood; the design of the project; and parking in the area. Ms. Alford felt that the project was inappropriate for the Downtown Area and for Rincon Ave. Chairman Olszewski asked what attributes the proposed development has to show that it is better than a single family development. Mr. Piasecki responded that the applicant has been sensitive to the neighborhood with the parking situation, roof elements, design elements, and lower density. Commissioner Kasolas stated that the City Council has not, to his knowledge, addressed changing the General Plan in this area. His understanding is that there is a need for housing in the Downtown Area in order to support redevelopment projects and mass transportion projects. How can the Commission say no, given the zoning for the area and the process it went through. Chairman Olszewski asked if a finding could be made that an application fits within the designated density but still may not be compatible with the allowable density. Mr. Piasecki noted that the Commission should look at the site plan related issues. The consideration should be reasonable when the applicant is being reasonable. Findings must be based on the City's policy for the area. Mrs. Pam Ruggieri, 106 E. Rincon Ave., expressed cancern with the building's profile/height; and,. the density and the size of the units. -8- Commissioner Christ related. that there has been discussion by past study __ committeess regarding possible historical overlays in this area to preserve the general feeling of the area. He hoped that these concerns have not been forgotten, in that the area has many unique characteristics that should be preserved. Ms. Dottie DeBachlan, 129 E. Rincon Ave., reported that the existing structures on the site are in a seriously deteriorated condition; and, that the proposed development is sensitive to the neighborhood by design and would be an improvement to the area. Commissioner Walker indicated concern with the impact of area development on Alice Avenue, with a "canyon-like" effect resulting from 2 & 3 story buildings. He suggested that the street's profile be kept lower, and that the proposed development be more sensitive to the smaller homes across the street. Commissioner Dickson noted that the Commission is not a policy-making body; that the Council has looked at this area very carefully and they have not given the Commission direction to lower densities; and, developers have a right to present plans with the opportunity of getting a fair hearing. Commissioner Christ stated that in an area with unique character, the Commission should be careful to see that the proposed project pays particular attention and doesn't create a domino affect which has the impact of collapsing neighborhoods. Mr. Leonard Ruggieri, 106 E. Rincon Ave., asked how the proposal could be sensitive to the neighborhood when there are no other townhomes in the neighborhood, and no other structures of this height. Commissioner Perrine pointed out that the applicant is asking for nothing more than the allowable density; that the design does have architectural features to soften it's impact; that this project is less than the 35 foot height limit allowable in the R-1 Zoning District; and, that the only thing that might be done to lessen the impact further would be readdressing some of the windows on the east elevation. Commissioner Walker expressed concern with the closeness of Mr. Wheeler's structures and asked if Mr. Wheeler might purchase some additional footage for more access. He also indicated he would like to see the development's height lowered. Mr. Dick pointed out that the proposal has a greater setback than required on the west side; and, that when Mr. Wheeler purchased his home, the setback was only 18 inches - the problem has always been there and is not the fault of the applicant. Commissioner Perrine noted that the situation appeared to be one of a legal nonconforming use trying to impose a problem on the Commission. He asked if the setbacks on Mr. Wheeler's property impose any restrictions on setbacks for fencing on the subject development. -9- City Attorney Seligmann responded that the Commission could consider this project as it addresses surrounding properties; that requiring the applicant to give property to Mr. Wheeler to resolve his setback problems would create problems; and, Mr. Wheeler's setbacks do not impose different setbacks on the proposed development. Mr. John Peters, 118 S. Fourth St., questioned the concerns for the pepper tree on the adjacent property, noting that trees on the subject property had been removed a few months ago at the onset of development plans. M/S: Stanton, Kasolas - That the public hearing on PD 89-03 be closed. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Walker, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Christ, Stanton, Olszewski ABSENT: Commissioners: None Commissioner Christ opposed the motion to close the public hearing because he felt the application should be continued for further review and fot review of plans for the street. M/S: Stanton, Perrine - That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this project; and, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2587, incorporating findings as indicated in the Staff Report of March 14, 1989, recommending that the City Council approve PD 89-03 subject to redlining of presented plans and the conditions of approval as indicated in the Staff Report. Discussion of motion Commissioner Walker opposed the motion, noting that this application appears to be a more sensitive issue than originally anticipated. Commissioner Dickson supported the motion, noting that it is proposed for the low end of the density range, and the plans show quality of design and try to match the neighborhood. Commissioner Christ opposed the motion, noting that the architectural design is satisfactory; a higher density could be appropriate in this area; some of the windows intrude onto the neighborhood rather than onto the development; and he felt that the project was not in the best interest of the community. Commissioner Kasolas supported the motion, noting that the policy for this area is up to 20 units per gross acre; that the applicant has addressed the rules of the system; and, if the people feel there is a great need to change the policies for this area, they should proceed accordingly. -10- Commissioner Perrine supported the motion, noting that the development design and density is sensitive to the neighborhood. - Chairman Olszewski opposed the motion. He did not see a problem with the zoning in the area; but was concerned with the compatibility of the design with the neighborhood, specifically the height of the structures. Chairman Olszewski suggested modifying the plans to provide single story street frontage units or a stepped design. Additionally, provision of a permeable membrane was suggested to provide for the health of the pepper tree on the adjacent lot. Roll Call Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Stanton, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Christ, Walker, Olszewski ABSENT: Commissioners: None. MISCELLANEOUS ~ * ~ TS 89-01 Tentative Subdivision Map - Lands of NADCON - Saray, S. 96 Dot Ave. - APN 305-30-003. Principal Planner Phil Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of March 14, 1989, noting that Staff is recommending approval of this map. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That the Planning Commission find the proposed map to be in accord with the City's General Plan; and, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve TS 89-01, subject to attached conditions. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Stanton being absent for the vote, and Commissioner Kasolas abstaining due to absence from the discussion of the original Planned Development Permit on this map. ~ ~ SA 89-04 Continued sign application - Orchard City Guthrdige, D. Plaza Associates - 307 Orchard City Drive - PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Planning Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report of March 14, 1989, noting that Staff is also suggesting that the signing materials and illumination be modified for Zapp's location. Discussion ensued regarding the height of the proposed sign; the building materials and illumination technique; and, bringing the sign for Zapp's into conformance with the ordinances. (Commissioner Walker left the Chambers at 10:45 p.m.) -11- Mr. Dave Guthridge, Staff's proposal to ordinance. applicant, agreed to the conditions of approval and the bring signage for Zapp's into conformance with the M/S: Christ, Stanton - Discussion on motion That the Planning Commission approve the presented Sign A and Sign B; that the size of Sign C be approved with the actual design and materials coming back to the Site & Architectural Review Committee and Staff for final approval to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Olszewski opposed the motion because of the amount of signage provided for Zapp's. Roll Call Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Stanton, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Olszewski ABSENT: Commissioners: Walker ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Kasolas (due to possible conflict of interest). ~ ~ ~ SA 89-05 Clark, T. Continued sign application - Clark Pest Control - 964 Camden Ave. - M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Principal Planner Phil Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of March 14, 1989, noting that Staff is recommending denial based on the opinion that a pest control business is not dependent on freeway/expressway visibility. Commissioner Stanton reported that the Site & Architectural Review Committee is of the opinion that there are alternatives to address this situation; therefore, denial is recommended. Mr. Terry Clark, applicant, provided the Commission with photographs showing signing visible from Camden and from the expressway. Discussion ensued regarding the number of signs on the subject building; the orientation and visibility of signage; the location of this business relative to visibility from the expressway; the unusual shape of the building; other signage in the community which is visible from freeways/expressways relative to precedent setting; and, the size of the proposed sign relative to the size of the business. (Commissioner Walker re-entered the Chambers at 11:05 p.m.) Commissioner Stanton noted that there is an existing freestanding sign that will accomplish the requested identification and meet the ordinance requriements. Additionally, pest control services are not dependent upon vehicular tzaffic. -12- Commissioner Kasolas indicated that there are several signs throughout the community which are really freeway-oriented (ie. Best Products, Campbell Inn, Pruneyard Inn); however, he felt that the issue of the sign's size was legitimate. Additionally, the ordinance does not specifically prohibit these types of signs - only states that there is a process which must be addressed. Commissioner Perrine did not believe that a pest control business was dependent upon freeway orientation. Chairman Olszewski agreed that the size of the signage was the real issue. M/S: Christ, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission adopt the finding that due to the location and design of the buildings, the proposed 40 sq.ft. sign is the only location for adequate signage addressing Camden Avenue, which incidentally is viewable from the San Tomas Expressway; and that the Planning Commission approve the following signs: (1) A wall mounted sign (40 sq.ft.) oriented to San Tomas Expressway; and (2) A suspended plywood sign (4 sq.ft.) oriented to Camden Avenue, which is to include the street address numbers. Discussion on motion Commissioner Perrine opposed the motion, noting that the same sign could be on the wall facing Camden Avenue and not conflict with the ordinance. Commissioner Walker stated that he would be abstaining from the vote due to his absence from a portion of the discussion on this item. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Christ, Dickson, Olszewski NOES: Commissioners: Perrine, Stanton ABSENT: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Walker (due to absence from discussion on item). ~ ~ ~ Staff Report Staff Report regarding Appointment of Planning Commission Subcommittee to review Site and Architectural Review Procedures. Commissioners Christ and Walker were appointed to this Subcommittee, with Commissioner Christ as Chair. ~ ~ ~ REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR The Report of the Planning Director was noted and filed. ~ * ~ -13- SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS There were no Subcommittee Reports at this time. OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Dickson asked for the following issues to be agendized for a future meeting: (1) Criteria used by Public Works Department for the installation of Stop signs; and, the possibility of opening up Campbell Avenue east of Bascom Avenue. (2) The need to look at an ordinance to address unusual nuisances (ie. Tower Records) relative to increased parking needs/requirements. Chairman Olszewski asked Staff to prepare a commendation for Mr. Craig Mineweaser who has resigned his volunteer position with the City as Architectural Advisor. * ~ anmlmnn•rFrrr There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. APPROVED: Bruce Olszewski Chairman ATTEST: Steve Piasecki Secretary RECORDED: Linda Dennis Recording Secretary