Loading...
PC Min 02/14/1989PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES FEBRUARY 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, and Chairman Bruce Olszewski; Planning Director Steve Piasecki, Principal Planner Phil Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney Bill Seligmann, and Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Dickson, Walker - COMMUNICATIONS That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 24, 1989 be approved with the following correction: Pg. 8, vote on ZC 89-02 should read: Ayes - Kasolas, Christ, Stanton, Walker, Dickson; Noes - Olszewski. Motion tarred 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Perrine abstaining due to absence from the meeting. Communications received pertain to specific agenda items, and will be discussed under that item. ORAL REQUESTS Chairman Olszewski invited anyone to address the Commission on issues not agendized. There being no one, the Chairman proceeded with the set agenda. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS City Manager Report on the state of the City. City Manager Kevin Duggan briefly reviewed the City's major goals for 1988-1989, and answered questions from the Commission regarding Route 85, the Downtown Redevelopment Program, the Circulation Element, the Ainsely House relocation, the Los Gatos Creek Trail, 900 E. Hamilton Ave. project, the Community Center Master Plan, and consideration of the implementation of a Citizen's Committee to work on Capital Improvement Programs. -2- Redevelopment Discussion of the Planning Commission's role in reviewing Redevelopment Area Projects. Planning Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report of February 14, 1989. Chairman Olszewski expressed the following concerns: What specific determining factors are used to define actions of the Agency involving redevelopment plans, specific plans, and other planning studies? In reference to the Salmar/Harrison plan, what determined other projects and whether they will come to the Commission as a "draft" or a formal application. In reference to the Ainsley House and information being published in the newspaper before the Commission had knowledge - how information sharing might be facilitated; and, is the Redevelopment Agency obtaining the services of an Architectural Advisor. Redevelopment Director Robert Kass explained that the Planning Commission's role in redevelopment plans are set forth in the State Redevelopment Law and the Planning Commission is required to make findings in accord with that law. To date, there have been no amendments to the Redevelopment Plan. In 1983 the Commission was involved in making findings that determined the Redevelopment Plan to be in conformance with the General Plan. Regarding specific plans - the plans are presented to the Commission in a draft form; and when the final plan is prepared. It is brought to the Commission for approval. Private development projects would proceed through the process in a normal development manner. Those projects where there is involvement with the Agency (there have been none so far) will go before the Agency to set the framework before they come to the Commission. Regarding an Architectural Advisor, Mr. Kass indicated that there has been one project on which the Agency asked a former Advisor for a perspective. Redevelopment Agencies often have their own architect; however, Campbell does not - so from time to time the Agency may have to bring in someone to assist it. City Manager Kevin Duggan discussed the Ainsley House issue, noting that there has been no attempt at secret negotiations; that the Commission will definitely be involved in the Planning issues facing the relocation of the house; and, that negotiations thus far have involved whether or not the relocation is feasible from a cost standpoint and from engineering standpoints. Commissioner Perrine asked what the Agency is looking for when items are sent to the Commission for review and comment. Mr. Kass indicated that the Agency is looking for information pertaining to land use and design issues. Commissioner Dickson expressed concern with the process of discussion going on with the community prior to coming to the Commission such as what has been happening with residents regarding the SaLnar/Harrison plan. This action is normally a Planning Commission/Department responsibility, and it is now being done by Redevelopment Staff duplicating the process. Commissioner Dickson continued that because Planning is not now doing the neighborhood hearings, the __ Commission is not getting the basic input of the community - this is detrimental to the decision-making process. He also expressed concern with any implications that hearings on the Ainsley House were kept secret, because there is strength in open discussion. -3- Mr. Kass suggested that the Commission be sent the information on the community meetings and that the Commissioners may wish to attend those meetings for direct information. In the normal planning process, there is often a large amount of public input prior to the issue being before the Commission. Mr. Duggan added that the Salmar/Harrison plan had lengthy Staff discussion, and the Council and Commission were exposed to the draft document prior to any solicitation of public input. The proposed plan has not reached the public hearing stage yet. Mr. Duggan continued that the Planning and Redevelopment Staff work as a project team together; and, now with additional staff, it will be possible to gather more information than previously. There has been no attempt to have the Commission less involved - and it would certainly be compatible to have the Commission involved in the initial stages. Commissioner Kasolas recalled that when the acquisition of the high school was under consideration, the matter was discussed with everyone and every Commission prior to being put on the ballot. Now it appears that there is little input, especially on Redevelopment-assisted projects. Commissioner Kasolas noted that he would assume that any discussion of a traffic signal on Campbell Ave. will be done under a public forum. Mr. Duggan indicated that there cannot be private deals made, that everything must be done with a public forum; however, there is a great deal of staff work that goes on to bring a presentation to the public forum. Regarding the Ainsley House, Mr. Duggan noted that over the next 4-5 months there will be ample time for public input. Commissioner Dickson commented that as this process continues, there will be many questions - different plans coming before the Commission in different ways - and confusion in the community. The City must be very careful with the process making sure that people understand there are no deviant actions. More redevelopment information is needed. Mr. Piasecki noted that he would like to use the newly created "Report From The Planning Director" to keep the Commission up to date. M/S: Kasolas, Dickson - That this issue be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 1989, for the purpose of comments or recommendations that may be appropriate. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). CONSENT CALENDAR .JC SY X Planning Consultant Request of David Powers & Associates to be considered for placement on the City of Campbell's Planning Consultant List. M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the Planning Commission approve the applicant's request to be considered as a consultant for the preparation of environmental documents. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). !~t 'X 7C -4- PUBLIC HEARINGS M 88-20 Continued public hearing to consider the Bonnett, R. application of Mr. Robert Bonnett for approval of a modification to a previously approved Planned Development Permit to allow a revised parking plan on property known as 145 Dillon Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District. Planning Director Steve Piasecki reported that the applicant is requesting a continuance to the meeting of February 28, 1989, in order that he might address the Commission before a final vote. Mr. Piasecki noted that the rear buildings are not located on foundations and it may not be possible for the applicant to meet the conditions indicated. Staff has asked the applicant's attorney, Mr. Eller, if he would be willing to explore opportunities for redesigning the site or whether the cost for redesigning would be too prohibitive. Staff offers no objections to a continuance. Commissioner Christ suggested that the findings and conditions in the Staff Report be changed to read as follows: Finding X13: The 7 on-site parking spaces are considered inadequate, except as an interim use Finding ~~5: The proposed interim development or uses clearly will result in a more desirable environment and use of land than would be possible under any other zoning classification. Condition 4I20: The development's interim existence shall be allowed to exist in accordance with the proposed plans and specifications, as red-lined and conditioned, only until February 1, 1991. Chairman Olszewski opened the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak on this item at this time, the following motion was made. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That the public hearing on M 88-20 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 28, 1989. Motion carried 6-1-0, with Commission Stanton voting "no". SC ~. MISCELLANEOUS M 89-01 The request of Mr. Fred Sahadi for approval Sahadi, F. of an architectural change to modify the porte cochere design for the Pruneyard Inn located on property known as 1995 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Planning Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report of February 14, 1989, noting that the presented plans indicate a metal raised structure with a -- horizontal banded element. Staff is not comfortable with the stucco wall treatment and the Architectural Advisor concurs with Staff's recommendation that other options be explored. -5- Commissioner Stanton reported that this item was considered by the Site & Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval as redlined with the revised plans returning to the Planning Director for review. Discussion ensued regarding the design; roof materials; the size of the structure; the purpose of the porte cochere relative to drawing attention to the entrance of the inn; and, the appearance of the rooftop from hotel windows. Mr. Fred Sahadi, applicant, reviewed the plans and indicated that the originally presented cover was not well developed and provided a much too busy of an effect which added to the confusion of the design. The current plans present a simplified porte cochere. Commissioner Christ noted his concern that the rooftop on the porte cochere could become a collection point for trash and dirt. M/S: Stanton, Perrine - That the Planning Commission approve M 89-01 in concept and as redlined, with the details of the roofing materials to come back to the Planning Director and Architectural Advisor for approval.. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). )C X 71 PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 89-02 Public hearing to consider the application George Tsagaris of George Tsagaris for approval of a Use Permit to allow an on-sale beer & wine license on property known as 2180 S. Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Principal Planner Phil Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of February 14, 1989, noting that Staff is recommending approval. Chairman Olszewski opened the public hearing. There was no one wishing to speak on this item. M/S: Stanton, Perrine - That the public hearing on UP 89-02 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Christ, Perrine - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2582, including findings and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of February 14, 1989, aprpoving UP 89-02. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasalas, Perrine, Christ, Stanton, Walker, Dickson, Olszewski _ NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. * ~ -6- MISCELLANEOUS SA 89-04 Sign application of Mr. D. Guthridge for Guthridge, D. approval of signage for an existing office development located on property known as 307 Orchard City Drive in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Principal Planner Phil Stafford reported that the applicant has requested a continuance on this item in order to present revised plans. M/S: Christ, Perrine - That SA 89-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 14, 1989, at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ,. ~• ~ Staff Report Review criteria regarding liquor licenses. Principal Planner Phil Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of February 14,-1989. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it was clear that some of the criteria used by the Police Department for liquor licenses are planning issues; and, he hoped that these criteria were being looked at strictly from a standpoint of enforcement costs - not religious exclusion or land use issues. Additionally, specific findings should be set forth from the Police Department if they are. recommending denial. He asked if the City can deny an application if the State has granted a liquor license. Mr. Seligmann noted that someone is not supposed to be able to obtain a liquor license until approval from the local jurisdiction. Commissioner Christ noted that he was pleased with the criteria used and that it appeared to be strictly from an enforcement standpoint. Commissioner Dickson stated that he could not recall more than one instance wherein the Police Department came back with a recommendation for denial; and, he wasn't sure how the Police Department could really give the Commission the kind of recommendation it is looking for. Additionally, the presence of the Alcoholic Beverage Control has greatly diminished, and the community must be careful in thinking that the ABC will take care of the situation. Commissioner Dickson concluded that the use permit process is not working for these situations, and that the issue should be discussed in a study session. Commissioner Walker indicated that perhaps additional attention needs to be given to these requests in areas where there is minimal retail and adjacent residential - perhaps an overlay zone to protect the residential areas. It was the consensus of the Commission that this report be noted & filed. ~~ ~ ~ -7- Staff Report Application submittal requirements and review procedures; Site & Architectural Review Board's meeting schedule. Planning Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the Staff Report of February 14, 1989. Commissioner Dickson expressed concern about increasing costs to the developer and to buyers; he felt that most of the presented plans are easily understood; that the issue should be discussed at a study session; and, that the trend was in the wrong direction. Chairman Olszewski concurred with Commissioner Dickson relative to development costs; however, he felt that the Commission needs appropriate information. Chairman Olszewski felt that there are problems understanding relationships of new projects with their surroundings; and, that it is important to note the burden of additional costs to the Council. If the matter does go to Council, he asked that the issue of "property line to property line" drawings be specifically requested, as well as elevations which show elevator towers and roof screening. Commissioner Kasolas expressed concern with the costs involved, noting that the issue will become one where costs are cut; and although he agreed that better information helps to make a better decision, he felt that the system of relying on Staff and the Architectural Advisor has worked well. Commissioner Christ asked what other cities require. Regarding the provision of reduced plans for the agenda packets, Commissioner Christ felt that it was the individual Commissioner's responsibility to arrive early to review plans in the chambers or at the office. He concurred with the additional illustration, but did not see a need to include plans in the packets unless the project is extensive. Additionally, if renderings are provided, they should be accurate and to scale. Commissioner Walker concurred with Commissioner Christ, noting that relationship drawings may just be necessary in cases where the proposal is not harmonious with the surroundings. Chairman Olszewski felt that copies of plans should be included with the packets because that gives the Commission extra time to look at the projects. The costs involved could be offset by the avoidance of negative impacts. Commissioner Perrine indicated that he did not need to see every plan in a reduced format - perhaps only the major proposals. Mr. Piasecki noted that requiring reduced drawings would not be that expensive to the developer and that he would encourage this requirement. M/S: Perrine, Christ That the Planning Commission, by minute action, recommend to the City Council that the application submittal requirements be expanded to include the following: -8- AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: All development proposals (except site approvals for one home) shall provide the following exhibits: 1. Architectural illustrations/renderings providing the following: A. Eye-level, oblique-angle view of the building/site. B. Illustrate immediately adjacent structures. C. Accurately depict relative scale/height of proposed building compared to surrounding buildings. 2. Expand the architectural elevations (2 dimensional drawings) to include side-to-side and front-to-rear property lines giving site cross-sections. 3. Incorporate roof equipment screening and elevator towers into exhibits. 4. Provide reductions of plan sets in 11"x17" format for distribution to~City Council, Planning Commission, and Site & Architectural Review Committee with the Staff Report. 5. Staff to develop wording showing leniency on the .Commission's part, indicating preference for accuracy and detail. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: Perrine, Christ, Walker, Olszewski Kasolas, Stanton, Dickson None. ~c SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS There were no Subcommittee Reports. REPORT OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR The Commission scheduled a Study Session for Thursday, February 23, 1989, at 6:00 p.m. The Commission was asked to prioritize the list of topics and transmit that information to Staff. ADJOURNMENT ATTEST: Steve Piasecki Secretary RECORDED: Linda Dennis Recording Secretary There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. APPROVED: Bruce Olszewski Chairman