Loading...
PC Min 11/08/1988PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 1988 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, Robert Stanton, Bruce Olszewski, James Walker, J. DuWayne Dickson; Planning Director Arthur Kee, Planner II Tim Haley, Engineering Manager Bill Helms; City Attorney William Seligmann; Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Commissioners Perrine and Christ Vice-Chairman Olszewski noted that Commissioner Perrine was attending a class; and Chairman Christ was working at the election polls. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Stanton, Dickson - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 25, 1988, be approved as submitted. Motion carried 5-0-2. COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director Kee noted that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda. ORAL REQUESTS Vice-Chairman Olszewski asked if anyone wished to address the Commission on an issue that was not agendized. There being no one, the Vice-Chairman proceeded with the set agenda. x ~ ~ ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS M 88-22 Request of Mr. Franklin Wiseman for approval Wiseman, F. of a modification to a sideyard setback requirement to allow the construction of a second story addition to a single family residence on property known as 577 N. Central Ave. in an R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of November 8, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending approval of this request. Additionally, Mr. Kee noted that a referral an this item has been received from the City Council, and there is also an opinion from the City Attorney regarding this issue (attached hereto). -2- City Attorney Seligmann stated that, in his opinion, the provision of the Zoning Code under Section 21.08.070 requiring approval of adjacent property owners, is unconstitutional. Consequently, this provision should not be taken into account when making a decision on this request. Dr. Anthony Sabatelle, owner of 570-572 Monica Lane, stated that saying a neighbor doesn't have to come to another neighbor is violating the constitution. If the Planning Commission is a legal body, then the rules set down by the Commission should also be legal. Dr. Sabatelle continued that he is not opposed to the additional of a second story; however, he is opposed to an infringement on the setbacks. Commissioner Dickson noted that the Commission has always asked the opinion of the adjacent property owners; however, the existing ordinance has taken away the Commission's authority to make the decision. M/S: Kasolas, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings and conditions, and approve M 88-22. Discussion on motion Commissioner Dickson supported the motion in lieu of past policy, noting that there has been a policy of asking the opinion of the adjacent property owners; and, it has been the Commission's practice to pretty much approve these types of setback variances because of structural and architectural situations. This is the first time there have been adjacent property owners who object and who do not occupy the property. Commissioner Walker stated that he would still consider the neighbors opinions; that this project is on a major residential street; and, he thought that the project shows a little too much mass on the site. Vice-Chairman Olszewski opposed the motion, noting that he felt this project would create a negative precedent in this neighborhood; and, that there are architectural solutions that would blend better with the neighborhood and result in a better project. Vote on motion Motion carried with a vote of 3-2-2, with Commissioners Olszewski and Walker voting no, and Commissioners Perrine and Christ being absent. Vice-Chairman Olszewski explained the appeal procedure to the audience. -3- M 88-14 Continued public hearing to consider the PD 88-01 application of Mr. Roger Edsinger for a Edsinger, R. modification to approved plans to allow the construction of an office and storage building on property known as 219 Dillon Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District. Planner II Haley reviewed the Staff Report of November 8, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending approval of this application. Commissioner Stanton reported that this item was reviewed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval as redlined, with the redlining addressing the building trim. Vice-Chairman Olszewski opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S: Stanton, Walker - That the public hearing on M 88-14/PD 88-01 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). M/S: Stanton, Walker - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2567, incorporating findings and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of November 8, 1988, recommending that the City Council approve M 88-14/PD 88-01. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Perrine, Stanton, Walker, Dickson, Olszewski Christ ~~c* PD 88-10 Continued public hearing to consider the Ward, G. application of G. R. Ward, General Contractor, 'for approval of a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of 3 townhomes on property known as 1430 W. Latimer Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Planner II Haley noted that the property owner, Mr. Fred Chan, is requesting a two month continuance to make revisions to the plans. Staff would support this continuance. Commissioner Stanton noted that the Site and Architectural Review Committee would also agree to the requested continuance. Vice-Chairman Olszewski opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. -4- M/S: Stanton, Walker - That the public hearing on PD 88-10 be continued to January 10, 1989 at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). ~ ~ M.88-20 Public hearing to consider the application of Bonnett, R. 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 Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Planner II Haley reported that, at this time, Staff is recommending a continuance to December 13, 1988, because of discussion relating to the provision of alternative parking which would result in revised plans for this proposal. Commissioner Stanton noted that this item was discussed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending that the subject building not be allowed to remain. The applicant has indicated his willingness to enter into an agreement with the City to join a future parking district. If the possibility of an agreement for a parking district, and with the adjustment of the buildings on the property, the Site Committee would concur with the continuance; however, the Committee feels very strongly that the applicant -- incur all the costs for the development of an agreement with the City and the provisions of a performance bond (the amount of which to be set by the Public Works Department). Commissioner Kasolas proposed that the applicant be allowed to have the same parking standards as the standards being set for the downtown area, since this property is adjacent to the downtown redevelopment area. Vice-Chairman Olszewski noted that this issue was discussed at the Site Committee meeting. The discussion resulted in some consideration for the applicant to make up the short-fall of parking_by joining a parking district. In the meantime, the applicant can sign an agreement and post a bond for some guaranty of compliance; and, there will be some parking created by eliminating one non-conforming building. Vice-Chairman Olszewski opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S: Stanton, Walker - That the public hearing on M 88-20 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of December 13, 1988, based on the discussion this evening. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). -5- M 88-23 Public hearing to consider the application Prometheus Development of Prometheus Development Co. for approval of a modification to a previously approved Planned Development Permit to allow a modification in proposed phasing. to allow the construction of a second office building of 175,000 sq.ft. and an adjustment in the proposed parking ratio on properties known as 900 E. Hamilton Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of November 8, 1988, and noted that the applicant is of the opinion that they can address the concerns of Staff in time for the Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1988. Staff would support this continuance date. Commissioner Stanton reported that this item was discussed at length by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is supporting the recommendation for continuance to November 22, 1988. Vice-Chairman Olszewski requested that information be provided illustrating different parking ratios - present code and presently approved for this project; that discussion be provided which addresses depressing parking on the freeway side of the new street; that information be provided regarding the possibility of incorporating a pedestrian bridge or tunnel; that information be provided regarding the revisions of the Fire Department which may result in a reduction of parking; and, that. additional rendering be provided illustrating the full build-out on this site. Vice-Chairman Olszewski opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. Ms. Dorothy Shattuck, 391 California St., stated that the citizens are hoping and trusting that the Commission will standfast against intensification of density on this project. Mr. Kee noted that, in Staff's opinion, the inclusion of the second office building at this particular time is a good thing for the City. Staff is also saying that the applicant must justify any changes in the parking ratio to the Commission. M/S: Walker, Stanton - That the public hearing on M 88-23 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). * ~ ~ MISCELLANEOUS TS 88-09 Tentative Subdivision Map - Lands of DuPois - Lands of DuPois 60 Shelley Ave. - APN 414-40-018. -6- Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of November 8, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending approval of this tentative subdivision map. -- M/S: Kasolas, Stanton - That the Planning Commission find the proposed map in accord with the General Plan; and, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve TS 88-09, subject to the attached conditions. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). ~ * ~ SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Subcommittee Site & Architectural Review Procedure Reports Subcommittee; Tree Preservation Committee; Site & Architectural Review Committee; Dover School Uses Subcommittee. There were no Subcommittee Reports at this time. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. APPROVED: Bruce Olszewski - Vice-Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda Dennis Recording Secretary Item No. 1 CITY QF CAMP9ELL M SH-22 Wiseman, F. 'REFERRAL FORM CITY COUNCIL/ADVISORY CDMdISS10N/STAFF To planning Commission FROM City Council 1 NSTRUCTI olvs FOR tSE OF THI S TNIi FORM fNOULD PE UTILIZED tMENEVER A REFERRAL If MADE FROM ONE ELECTED OR ADVISORY ~OOY TO THE CITY COUNCIL OR ADVISORY COMMIff10N OR CITY MANAOER• THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO COMPLETE TNIf FORM SNOtILD OE ` PROVIDED YY THE INITIATOR AT THE TIME THE REFERRAL If MADE• THE fTAFF ADVISOR•/lILL •E RESPONftYLE FOR COMPLETING THE FORM FOR REVIEW ANO SIGNATYRE •Y THE MAYOR OR COMMIfS10N CNAIRMAN. Planning Commission Referral - Urgency Ordinance - M C Section 21 08 070 SUBJECT ( A SPEC 1 F 1 C SUh4.lARY OF Tl~ REFERRAL ) The f it~• (`nt~nc-;1 nn it/1/AR mns;de Pd h P1~nnintr o i ferral that the Council consider an Ur enc Ordinance to eliminate the orov~sion under Min;goal Code Section 2~ 08 070 to require consent from an adiacent aroperty owner relative to second stor additions and setback re uirements. U n consideration of a ublic opinion rendered by the City Attorney regarding the validity of the consent requirement, the Council took action to note and file the City.Attorney's opinion, and that an Urgency Ordinance not be considered. wcTl cN REC~UESTED C.] INFORMATION ONLY ~ REVIEII AND a TAKE ACTION RECOMMEND ACTION OOMh~NTS (IF NECESSARr) This action will enable the staff to proceed with the necessary text amendment to the Municipal Code for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. RESF~OPtSE RECUESTED BY (BY SF~AT DATE THE ACTION SHOULD BE OOMPLETED. 1F ND DATE 1 S SPEC 1 F 1 ED. THAT SFIOULD BE 1 ND 1 CATED . ) DATE Nov. 9, 1988 St61NATURE ~. _ R OR A VISORY COMMIES ON AIRMAN Item 411 M 88-22 Wiseman, F. M E M O R A N D U M To: Planning Commission From: City Attorney, William Seligmann Date: 2 November 198II Re: Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.08.070 Background In February of 1987 the current provisions of Campbell Municipal Code section 21.08.076 were enacted. These provisions allowed a second story addition to be constructed with minimum five (5) foot setback if the .Planning Commission found certain conditions were met. One of these conditions was that the owner of the proposed second story addition obtained consent from the adjoining property owners. At the Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 1988, members of the Planning Commission raised concerns regarding the consent provision of section 21.08.070. As a consequence of these concerns, the matter was referred to the City Council. At the City Council meeting of November 1, 1988 the City Council authorized the City Attorney to publicly present his opinion on the validity of the consent provision. Issue Can the City condition approval of a set deviation on obtaining the consent of a neighboring owner? Discussion While an argument could be made that the consent provision of Municipal Code section 21.08.070 is a valid exercise of the police power which serves to protect the welfare of persons residing in Campbell neighborhoods, the Courts have taken a dim view of sack provisions. In the case of Seattle Trust Co any vs Roberge (1928) 278 U.S. 116, for instance, the _ U.S. Supreme Court struck down an ordinance that required the written consent of owners of two-thirds (2/3) of the property within four hundred (400) feet of a proposed old age home. In that case, the Court held that standardless delegation of land 1 use regulatory powers to private interest violated due process clause of the Federal Constitution. Similarly, in the case of Hurst vs. City of Burlingame (1929) 207 Cal. 134, the California Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion. In the Hurst case, the Court struck down a provision which made the power to reclassify any of the property in the City of Burlingame contingent upon the consent of a majority of property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the property sought to be rezoned. Conclusion Under current case law, it appears that the neighbor consent provision of section 21.08.070 is most likely unenforceable, and therefore should be disregarded by the Planning Commission. 2 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: M 88-22 SITE ADDRESS: 577 N. CENTRAL AVE. APPLICANT: F. WISEMAN PC MTG: 10-25-88 1. The proposed addition is architecturally compatible to the existing structure and is a design similar to other residential structures in this neighborhood. 2. The proposed addition is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood, or general welfare of the City. 3. The proposed residential addition, with the exception of the southerly sideyard setback meets all the development standards for a residential use. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. Applicant to secure all necessary building permits.