PC Min 08/09/1988PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
7:30 P.M. MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1988
The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular
session at the regular meeting place, the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N.
First St., Campbell, California.
ROLL CALL
Present Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine,
Olszewski, Walker, Dickson, Christ; Planning
Director Arthur Kee, Principal Planner Phil
Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms,
City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording
Secretary Linda Dennis.
Absent None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/S: Perrine, Stanton (1) That the minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting of July 26, 1988 be
amended as follows: Pg. 16 - M 88-03/S 86-21
- motion to read "M/S: Dickson, Walker -
That the Planning Commission approve the
presented circulation plan for the Pruneyard
Inn subject to the condition that plans be
submitted by September 2, 1988 for the
September 13, 1988 Planning Commission
meeting indicating the parking lot entryway
wall, parking lot signing, and parking lot
exit designs. Motion carried unanimously
(2) That the minutes of July 26, 1988 be
approved with this correction. Motion
carried unanimously (6-0-0-1, with
Commissioner Kasolas abstaining due to
absence from that meeting).
COMMUNICATIONS
Planning Director Kee noted that communications received pertained to specific
items on the agenda.
ORAL REQUESTS
Chairman Christ asked if anyone wished to address the Commission on an issue
that was not agendized. There being no one, the Chairman proceeded with the
set agenda.
SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Chairman Christ presented a Resolution from the Planning Commission to
Commissioner DuWayne Dickson commending him for 15 years of service on the
Commission.
-2-
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS
M 88-09 Continued application of Mr. John Camarena
Camarena, J. for approval of a modification to allow the
construction of a mansard roof design 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 Kee reported that Staff has received a communication from the
applicant requesting a continuance of 3-6 months so that he may review options
on this proposal.
Discussion ensued regarding allowable time frames for continuances under the
ordinances.
M/S: Perrine, Kasolas - That M 88-09 be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting; and, that Staff contact
the applicant for clarification on his
intentions. Motion carried unanimously
(7-0-0).
PUBLIC HEARINGS
UP 88-06 Continued public hearing to consider the
Johansen, L. application of Mrs. Lillian Johansen for
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow
the establishment of a Large Family Day Care
Home (7-12 children) and approval to allow
the conversion of a two-car garage to living
space on property known as 256 Calado Ave. in
an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning
District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988, noting
that Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's requested Use Permit.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. Concerns were raised regarding the conversion
of the garage to a playroom; that there is no provision of covered parking on
the site; and, pedestrian circulation appears unsafe because of the way
vehicles park on the site. The Committee is therefore recommending denial as
presented.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Mrs. Lillian Johansen, applicant, addressed the recommended findings, and noted
that the arrival of the parents dropping off children is staggered; that the -_
parents have been instructed to pull into the parking area in the front of the '
house; that had she known covered parking was required, she would have
complied; that there is no one around her to use the on-street parking, and the
neighbors agree with her that there shouldn'.t be a problem; and, that her lot
is much larger than the normal single family lot. Mrs. Johansen asked for a
specific list of items with which she must comply.
-3-
Mr. Stafford noted that the code requires two on-site parking spaces, one of
which must be covered, for single family homes. The parking requirement for a
Large Family Day Care Center would require three more spaces added to the
residential requirement.
Chairman Christ indicated to the applicant that two of the presented parking
spaces are on the street and could be used by anyone; therefore, they cannot be
counted as provided parking for the day care use. Additionally, there is no
covered parking on the site as required by City codes.
Commissioner Olszewski stated that the basic issues are whether the Commission
will allow the two spaces on the street to be counted as part of the required
parking, and will the Commission grant the garage conversion. The Site
Committee could not support the garage conversion because it allows a more
intense use of the property. The Committee is also concerned about covering
landscaping to provide parking, which has already happened on this site.
Another concern is that the intensity of the use may be too intense for the
amount of parking that is available. If the applicant chooses to provide for
less children, then the parking requirement would be less.
Mrs. Johansen asked if Commissioner Olszewski was inferring that the Staff
might recommend approval of a Large Family Day Care Center for ten children.
Commissioner Olszewski noted that he was saying that less children would
require less parking; and, that the street parking cannot be included in the
calculations.
Commissioner Walker stated that he did not have a problem with the street
parking; however, he was concerned with the covered parking issue.
Commissioner Dickson noted that the idea is to preserve the residential
appearance of homes; and, that he would looking carefully to see if there was
adequate square footage in the home for the number of children.
Commissioner Stanton noted that converting the garage back to covered parking
use would result in a reduction of area available to the children.
Mr. Johansen indicated that there is a 400 sq.ft. family room which can be used
for the children, if the garage is coverted back to parking.
Planning Director Kee stated that Staff has recommended denial and cannot
support the use with the number of children requested. However, Staff has no
objection to a continuance or meeting with the applicant to review the
ordinance.
M/S: Kasolas, Stanton - That the public hearing on UP 88-06 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of September 13, 1988 in order that the
applicant can meet with Staff to discuss
possible alternatives (ie. converting garage
back to parking, reducing the number of
children, etc.). Motion carried unanimously
(7-0-0).
~ ~
-4-
PD 88-10 Continued public hearing to consider the
Ward, G. R. 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.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988, noting
that Staff is recommending a continuance.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. There are a substantial number of revisions
that need to be made to the presented plans, therefore the Committee is
recommending a continuance.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - That the public hearing on PD 88-10 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of September 13, 1988, with the applicant's
concurrence. Motion carried unanimously
(7-0-0).
~ ~ x
S 88-06 Continued public hearing to consider the
Pool, Patio application of Pool, Patio & Things, Inc.,
for approval of plans to allow the
establishment of a retail and warehouse use
in an existing building (rear of Breuner's
store) on property known as 525 E. Hamilton
Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988, noting
that a traffic report indicating no significant impacts has been submitted and
found to be satisfactory to the Traffic Engineer. Staff is recommending
approval of this application.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval as
redlined. The redlining of the presented plans indicates canopy treatment;
loading ramps treatment; and screening of trash enclosure area.
Chairman Christ asked about Condition 4115 of the Fire Department regarding
information on the materials to be stored in the warehouse area.
-5-
Mr. Stafford responded that this issue will be addressed by the Fire Department
as a proceduraly matter once occupancy has been established. The plans have
been reviewed by the Fire Department, and Staff is not aware of any changes
that result on the plans as a result of the applicant having to file a
Hazardous Materials inventory.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Mr. Buzz Homsy, applicant, responded to questions from the Commission, noting
that there will be no chemicals stored in the building; the entrance is
adjacent to the back entrance of Breuner's because the shipping dock well on
the north side of the building is too deep to be an acceptable entrance; and,
the intent is to tie the patio furniture store into the indoor furniture store.
M/S: Kasolas, Dickson - That the public hearing on S 88-06 be
closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0).
M/S: Kasolas, Walker - That the Planning Commission adopt the
findings and conditions as indicated in the
Staff Report of August 9, 1988, and approve
S 88-06. Motion carried with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski,
Walker, Dickson, Christ
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: None.
* * ~
MISCELLANEOUS
SA 88-27 Continued signing request - Pool, Patio &
Pool, Patio Things - 525 E. Hamilton Ave. - C-2-S
(General Commercial) Zoning District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the proposed signing plan.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending denial of the
signing program as presented; however, the Committee does have alternative
recommendations if the Commission wishes to hear them. The Committee
recommends that the Pool, Patio & Things sign on the freestanding Breuner's
sign be relocated within the two posts (as recommended by Staff); that "Fine
Home Furnishings ..." and "Open Tonight" not be added to the Breuner's
freestanding sign when removed from the bottom; that the "Open Tonight" on the
roof-mounted sign be converted to read "Pool, Patio & Things" and that the
"Open Tonight" not be relocated on top of the Breuner's sign; that the
directional signs be limited to 7 square feet each for a total of 14 square
feet for each directional sign; and, that the canopy sign be approved as
proposed.
-6-
Commissioner Kasolas noted that it is clear that the City has a stringent sign
ordinance; however, this situation appears to be an opportunity for taking a
more liberal view. The company has an excellent reputation; and, warehousing
area is being changed to income producing retail area, providing jobs and tax
dollars. Commissioner Kasolas felt that the "Open Tonight" was an important
part of the signage, and that encouragement should be given to provide for
additional retail dollars to the community.
Commissioner Dickson indicated that he had similar comments to Commissioner
Kasolas; that the "Home Furnishings..." is part of Breuner's logo; and, that he
was in agreement with Staff's recommendations.
Commissioner Olszewski explained the recommendations of the Site Committee,
noting that a 40.5 square foot directional sign seems outlandish and is larger
than most monument signs that are approved; the Committee felt that the
directional signs could function at a lesser size; the location of the store on
Hamilton Ave. does not present difficulty in finding it; and, the recommended
70 square feet for the freestanding sign area enables the sign to fit in
between the posts.
Chairman Christ agreed that "Open Tonight" and "Fine Home Furnishings ..." are
important to the identification of Breuner's, and he supported the
recommendations of the Site Committee with the exception of removing these
identifying statements.
Mr. Buzz Homsy, applicant, reviewed the signing proposal and the intentions
when developing the signing program: the location of the freestanding signing
under the Breuner's sign would provide for centering of the Pool, Patio &
Things sign; the removal of the roof sign was a compromise; the "Fine Home
Furnishings..." is an integral part of Breuner's and should be allowed to
remain; and, the directional signage has been reduced to 32 square feet.
Additionally, Mr. Homsy indicated that should the signage become a problem, the
project would have to be abandoned.
M/ Perrine - That the Planning Commission approve SA 88-27
subject to findings and conditions as
indicated in the Staff Report. Motion dies
for lack of a second.
M/S: Dickson, Perrine - That the Planning Commission approve Staff
Recommendation ~~1: a reduction in the size
of the proposed freestanding sign addition
from 114 sq.ft. to approximately 78 sq.ft.;
and, that the existing "Open Tonight" be
relocated to the Breuner's sign. Motion
carried 6-1, with Commissioner Kasolas voting
"no".
-~-
M/S: Dickson, Walker -
Discussion on motion
That directional signs be approved as
follows: 1 directional sign of 32 sq.ft. and
1 directional sign of 7 sq.ft.
Commissioner Perrine opposed the motion, noting it would be nice to have larger
directional signs in both locations.
Commissioner Olszewski opposed the motion, noting that there is a painted band
accent around the building which provides a directional-type element.
Vote on motion
M/S: Dickson, Perrine -
M/S: Dickson, Perrine -
Discussion on motion
Motion fails (2-5-0, with Commissioners
Dickson and Walker voting "yes").
That directional signs be approved as
follows: 1 directional sign of 32 sq.ft. and
1 directional sign of 15 sq.ft. Motion
carried (5-2-0).
That there be no changes to the roof-mounted
signage; and, that a wall-mounted sign of 140
sq.ft. be approved for the north elevation of
the building.
Commissioner Olszewski opposed the motion. Commissioner Olszewski felt that
the signing would be excessive, and three times more than what is allowable
under the sign ordinance.
Commissioner Dickson felt that the site was difficult to see because of the
trees along the freeway; that the building is quite large; and that the
ordinance allows the Commission to make adjustments.
Chairman Christ opposed the motion. He felt that an illuminated sign of 140
sq.ft. is rather large for the location, noting that 40-50 sq.ft. would be more
appropriate.
-8-
Commissioner Walker stated his agreement with Chairman Christ.
Vote on motion
Motion carried (4-3-0).
M/S: Perrine, Kasolas - That the canopy sign over the building
entrance measuring 37.5 sq.ft. be approved
per Staff recommendation. Motion carried
(7-0-0).
~ * ~
PUBLIC HEARINGS
S 88-09 Public hearing to consider the application of
Armann, K. Mr. Kjartan Armann for approval of plans and
elevations to allow an addition to a medical
office building on property known as 14495 S.
Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial)
Zoning District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988, noting
that Staff is recommending approval of this application.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee, and approval is recommended subject to
redlining of the presented plans to indicate the relocation of the trash
enclosure.
Chairman Christ asked about the traffic patterns in the area and if there is
another means to allow a vehicle to turn left onto Bascom Ave.
Engineering Manager Helms noted that it is not possible to guarantee left-hand
turn access because of the split jurisdictions in the area; however, there is
ample opportunity for driver's to make U-turns in order to head north on Bascom
Ave.
Commissioner Olszewski expressed a concern about the disposition of infectious
medical materials, especially adjacent to a residential area.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Dr. Ken Follmar, property owner, noted that infectious medical materials are
disposed of according to the specifications of the County Health Department
(sealed in plastic bags, and placed in the dumpster which is picked up three
times a week).
M/S: Dickson, Perrine - That the public hearing on S 88-09 be
closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0).
-9-
M/S: Dickson, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt the
findings and conditions as indicated in the
Staff Report of August 9, 1988 and approve
S 88-09. Motion carried with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski,
Walker, Dickson, Christ
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: None.
s~ ~;
The Commission recessed at 9:20 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:35 p.m.
~ ~ ~
V 88-07 Public hearing to consider the application of
Cole, D. Donald & Judy Cole for approval of a variance
to a required garage setback from 25' to 21'
on property known as 426 Sunberry Drive in an
R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning
District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988, noting
that Staff is recommending approval of this variance request.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S: Dickson, Walker - That the public hearing on V 88-07 be
closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0).
M/S: Dickson, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
No. 2545, including findings and conditions
as indicated in the Staff Report of August 9,
1988, approving V 88-07, with the additional
condition that a roll-up garage door be
provided. Motion carried with the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski,
Walker, Dickson, Christ
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: None.
~ ~ ~
S 88-11 Public hearing to consider the application of
Seibold Corp. Seibold Corporation, on behalf of
Chevron-USA, for approval of a site and
architectural application to allow the
construction of an island canopy in an
existing service station on property known as
3405 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-2-S (General
Commercial) Zoning District.
-10-
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988, noting
that Staff is recommending a continuance so that a revised plan may be
submitted.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the. Site and
Architectural Review Committee and a continuance is recommended to September
13, 1988.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the public hearing on S 88-11 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of September 13, 1988. Motion carried
unanimously (7-0-0).
~ ~ ~
S 88-12 Public hearing to consider the application of
Mirkin, B. Mr. Barry Mirkin for approval of plans and
elevations to remodel an existing
restaurant/bar into retail shops on property
known as 100 W. Hamilton Ave. in an C-2-S
(General Commercial) Zoning District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988, noting _
that Staff is recommending a continuance on this item.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee, and a continuance is recommended to September
13, 1988.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Ms. Jane Walters, 6186 Black Oak Ln., San Jose (owner of adjacent property at
430 Dunster Dr.) asked that a masonry wall be constructed between the
residential property and the subject commercial lot.
Commissioner Dickson proposed that the Commission approve this application at
this time subject to the submittal of revised plans addressing the concerns in
the Staff Report.
Mr. Stafford noted that revised plans have been received by Staff, however
comments have not been received from other City departments as yet.
Commissioner Stanton felt that a continuance would enable this project to be
considerably enhanced.
Commissioner Olszewski stated that as a member of the Site Committee and being
very interested in this development, he would be interested in having the -
applicant come back before the Committee to address it's concerns; that the
full Commission should have an opportunity to look at the subject location;
and, that it would be beneficial to the community to have this item continued
for the submittal and review of complete revised plans.
-11-
M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the public hearing on S 88-12 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of September 13, 1988. Motion carried
unanimously (6-1-0, with Commissioner Dickson
voting "no").
~ ~ ~
R 88-03 Public hearing to consider the application of
UP 84-04 the South Bay Covenant Church for a rein-
South Bay Convenant statement of a previously approved Use Permit
which allowed the establishment of a church
on property known as 1300 Sheffield Ave.
(Dover School) in a P-F (Public Facilities)
Zoning District.
Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988, noting that
Staff is recommending approval of the reinstatement request.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Mrs. Charlotte Wendell, Manchester Ave., stated that the neighborhood is
becoming impacted with noise all day long from the uses at the Dover School
location. The San Jose Christian School is operating at this location, as well
as Day Break School (pre-school to third grade), resulting in a time period of
1 hr. and 15 min. a day when there is no noise at the fence area abutting the
residential area. The residents did not have a problem with Dover School
because the number of hours that children were playing outside were much less
than what is occuring at this time. There is now constant noise and excessive
drop-off traffic. Mrs. Wendell noted that she has talked with the School
District and they have not been able to provide assistance; therefore, she is
asking the City for help.
Discussion ensued regarding whether or not the complaints regarding the school
uses were relative to the reinstatement of the Use Permit for the church use.
Mr. Kee suggested that the Commission take action on the agendized item at this
time. Staff could then come back with a report addressing the remainder of the
Dover School property.
Mrs. Virginia Miskulin, 277 Manchester Ave., stated that playground equipment
is presently being installed adjacent to her backyard.
Mr. Kee indicated that the property is zoned P-F (Public Facilities) and a
pre-school and day care (including play areas) are allowable uses under this
zoning district.
Mrs. Wendell noted that she is not arguing about the use of the property, but
rather the location of the play area in that this areas seems impacted.
Commissioner Dickson asked Staff to alert the School District that there are
concerns in this area.
-12-
Mr,. Doyle DeGraaf, representing South Bay Convenant Church, noted that the
church operates on the side of the property which is away from the residential
area, and the church does not operate a pre-school or school during the
summer. The children associated with South Bay Covenant Church as on the
playground no more than 30 minutes a day, 3 or 4 times a week, and they are
asked to stay on the playground closest to the building. The church has had a
good working relationship with the neighbors and hopes to continue this
relationship. The church is in no way related to the Day Break School or the
San Jose Christian School uses on this site. Mr. DeGraff felt that the
church's use permit should not be contingent with the other uses at this
location.
Mr. Kee noted that the school uses are allowed in this zoning district and do
not need a use permit.
Mrs. Cirello, 367 Manchester Ave., stated that she lives behind the multi-use
room which is used by the church and she feels that this is not the right
location for church use. Mrs. Cirello continued that she had no problems with
the Dover School use; however, there is now excessive traffic and stop signs as
well as noise from the church use in the evening. Additionally, Mrs. Cirello
indicated she has excessive noise in her back yard from the church uses; that
there are lights shining into her house at night; and cars starting up rather
late in the evening because of the many evening functions.
Mr. DeGraaf noted that portions of the parking area are restricted according to
previous conditions of approval; the facility is not used for school after 3
p.m.; the facility is used on Tuesday and Sunday evenings a few times month;
some of the noise may be from music practices or counseling sessions which are
in the evening during the week; and, Sheffield Ave. is the only access to this
location.
Mrs. Miskulin reported that the church does have an amplified band that
practices once a week, and this is very annoying to the residents.
Mrs. Cirello noted that the access on Dover Ave. is open whenever there are
special functions going on at the site.
M/S: Dickson, Stanton - That the public hearing on R 88-03/UP 84-04
be closed. Motion carried 6-1-0, with
Commissioner Olszewski voting "no".
M/S: Dickson, Perrine - That the Planning Commission adopt a
resolution, incorporating findings as
indicated in the Staff Report of August 9,
1988, reinstating UP 84-04 for a period to
expire June 30, 1989.
Discussion on motion
Commissioner Olszewski opposed the motion, noting that the hours of operation
appear to be placing an undue burden on the residential area.
Commissioner Dickson noted that the church has been operating at this location
for some time, and no complaints have been received during that time.
-13-
Vote on motion
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
Motion fails (3-4-0).
Kasolas, Perrine, Dickson
Stanton, Olszewski, Walker, Christ
None.
Discussion ensued regarding the current uses on the site; the possibility of
continuing the matter due to the lateness of the hour; and, the hours of
operation of the church (with 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. being a concern).
M/S: Stanton, Olszewski - That the public hearing on R 88-03/UP 84-04
be reopened. Motion carried unanimously
(7-0-0).
M/S: Stanton, Olszewski - That the public hearing on R 88-03/UP 84-04
be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of September 27, 1988, in order that
the review of the entire site may be
presented as well as a review of the impact
that this particular application has on the
site; and a review of the hours of
operation. Motion carried unanimously
(7-0-0).
* * ~
Commissioner Walker left the chambers at 10:30 p.m.
* ~
M 88-14 Public hearing to consider the application of
PD 88-01 Roger Edsinger for a modification to approved
Edsinger, R. 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.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988, noting
that Staff is recommending a continuance in order that revised plans may be
submitted.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The main concern of the Committee was that the
proposed addition is not architecturally compatible with the existing
building. The Architectural Advisor did indicate that there may be revisions
which can be made for a favorable opinion. The Committee is recommending
denial as presented, however, the applicant has requested to be heard.
-14-
Mr. Roger Edsinger, applicant, noted that the front portion of the building _
will screen the rear portion; that the lot is narrow; that landscaping will
provide screening; and, that he would like a decision this evening so that he
can proceed with construction.
Commissioner Stanton indicated that the applicant was offered a continuance so
that he could work with Staff or someone who could modify the structure to make
it compatible; however, he declined.
Commissioner Olszewski suggested that the Commission find that the building
design does not lend to harmonious development; and, that the Architectural
Advisor expresses concern that the storage building is not compatible with the
office building.
Commissioner Dickson indicated that he would like to see the design move
towards commercial or industrial, rather than residential.
Chairman Christ stated that there needs to be compatibility and continuity in
the design.
Commissioner Kasolas noted that it is difficult to have continuity with the
frame house in an industrial area; therefore, there appears to be a real
architectural problem with this application.
Commissioner Olszewski stated that he would be willing to support one
continuance to try to resolve the concerns.
M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the public hearing on M 88-14/PD 88-01
be continued to the Planning Commission
meeting of September 27, 1988. Motion
carried (6-0-1).
~ ~
S 88-08 Continued public hearing to consider the
Varrelmann, R. application of Mr. Robert Varrelmann for a
Site and Architectural Approval of plans,
elevations, and development schedule to allow
the construction of an office/industrial
building on property known as 380 Industrial
St. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning
District.
Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report, noting that Staff is
recommending continuance.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - That the public hearing on S 88-08 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting -
of September 27, 1988. Motion carried
unanimously (6-0-1).
~ ~
-15-
V 88-06 Continued public hearing to consider the
Leinwetter, P. application of Mr. Paul Leinwetter for a
variance to the side and rear yard setbacks
and a variance to the requirement allowing
only one accessory building over 200 sq.ft.
in size in order to allow the construction of
a detached carport on property known as 1171
E1 Solyo Ave. in an R-1 (Single Family
Residential) Zoning District.
Principal Planner Stafford noted that the applicant is requesting a continuance
for personal reasons, and Staff would therefore recommend such.
Chairman Christ noted a letter from Rita and James Hurley, 1143 E1 Solyo Ave.
(attached hereto); and, opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak
on this item.
Mr. Paul Leinwetter, applicant, noted that he has talked with his neighbors
regarding their concerns, and that he is preparing revised plans.
M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the public hearing on V 88-06 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of September 27, 1988 with the applicant's
concurrence. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
~ ~
PM 88-08 Continued public hearing to consider the
McClelland, R. application of Mr. Richard McClelland
regarding the Planning Director's denial of a
proposed Tentative Parcel Map allowing the
relocation of an interior property line on
property known as 1260 Burrows Rd. in an
R-1-10 (Single Family Residential) Zoning
District.
Planning Director Kee reported that this application was continued from the
Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 1988, in order that the applicant could
investigate alternatives for reapportioning the subject property. The
applicant has subsequently applied for a variance. The public hearing to
consider the variance request will be scheduled for September 13, 1988.
Therefore, Staff would recommend that this item be continued to the same
meeting.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - That the public hearing on PM 88-08 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of Septeeber 13, 1988. Motion carried
unanimously (6-0-1).
~ ~ ~
-16-
UP 88-07 Continued public hearing to consider the
_-
ome C urch application of the Home Church for approval
of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
establishment of a youth center in a shopping
center on property known as 1739, 1755, and
1757 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-2-S (General
Commercial} Zoning District.
Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988 noting that
this item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 1988,
so that the applicant could address concerns expressed by the Commission with
the provision of a Focused EIR. The applicant subsequently appealed the
Commission's requirement for an EIR to the City Council. This appeal was
consider by the Council at its meeting of July 19, 1988, and continued to the
Council meeting of August 16, 1988. Therefore, Staff is recommending that this
item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 1988 in
order to give the Council time to consider the appeal.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Ms. Hoa Yong, Brink's Cleaners, 1763 S. Winchester Blvd., presented a letter to
the Commission (attached hereto) and read this letter to the Commission, noting
that she is respectively requesting that the Commission deny the request for a
use permit and allow the center to remain commercial.
Mrs. Monica DiMieri, Wesley Manor, talked about the needed service that Brink's
Cleaners provides to area residents.
Mr. Tim Baker, 374 Surber Dr., San Jose, agreed with the recommendation for a
continuance; noted that the church has never told the cleaners that they would
not renew the lease; and, the use permit application is not for the area
occupied by the cleaners, but rather the area previously used as a pharmacy.
Mr. Adam Alb, 1757 S. Winchester Blvd., submitted a petition of 198 signatures,
gathered August 4, 1988 (on file), in favor of denying the use permit request.
M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the public hearing on UP 88-07 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of September 13, 1988. Motion carried
unanimously (6-0-1).
~ ~ ~
PD 88-06 Continued public hearing to consider the
Perez, G. application of Mr. Gregory Perez for a
Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations
and development schedule to allow the
construction of a single family home on
property known as 690 S. San Tomas Aquino Rd.
in a PD (Planned Development/ --
Low-Density Residential) Zoning District.
-17-
Principal Planner Stafford noted that since the Staff Report was written,
revised plans have been received. Staff could, therefore, support a
continuance should the Commission so choose.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Mr. Greg Perez, applicant, indicated his concurrence with the continuance.
M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the public hearing on PD 88-06 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of September 27, 1988. Motion carried
unanimously (6-0-1).
~ ~ ~
MISCELLANEOUS
SA 88-33 Signing request - Acme & Sons - 2210 S.
Acme & Sons Winchester Blvd. - C-2-S (General Commercial)
Zoning District.
Principal Planner Staff reviewed the signing request as indicated in the Staff
Report of August 9, 1988, noting that Staff is recommended approval.
M/S: Kasolas, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt the
findings and conditions as indicated in the
Staff Report of August 9, 1988, and approve
SA 88-33. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
~ * ~
TS 88-04 Tentative Subdivision Map - Lands of Dayen et
Lands of Dayen al - 400 Union Ave. - APN 412-28-002.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988, noting
that Staff is recommending approval of this tentative subdivision map.
Commissioner Olszewski expressed a concern that a tree that had been designated
for retention would be indicated for removal in the landscaping plan; and, if
that tree is going to be removed, then he could not support approval of this
map. Commissioner Olszewski noted that the retention of the tree could involve
eliminating a unit, and he wanted to make sure of what is being approved.
Commissioner Dickson noted that the subdivision map is not the correct facility
for addressing tree retention.
Commissioner Kasolas asked if addressing the tree issue violated the
subdivision map act in any way. He noted that he was of the understanding that
the original approval required the subject tree to be retained.
City Attorney Seligmann responded that the issue of tree retention did not
violation the subdivision map act; however, it may be necessary to make
appropriate findings.
-18-
Commissioner Olszewski stated that the problem is that the tree is not where it
was originally indicated. The Site Committee, in discussing the landscaping,
was attempting to make sure that the City gets exactly what it bargained for.
M/S: Perrine, Stanton - 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 this map, subject to the attached
conditions. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
Commissioner Dickson asked that Staff prepare a report showing the site layout
accuracy as it pertains to the existing trees.
~t
PUBLIC HEARINGS
TA 88-05 Public hearing to consider possible
City-initiated amendments to Chapter 21.50 (Parking) of the
Campbell Municipal Code as it pertains to
residential parking requirements.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Commissioner Kasolas asked that the next Staff Report include information on
the possible fiscal impacts, possible impacts on the footprints of buildings,
and possible impacts on landscaping.
M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the public hearing on TA 88-05 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of October 11, 1988. Motion carried
unanimously (6-0-1).
MISCELLANEOUS
Request Continued request of Mrs. Rosa Guerra -
Guerra, R. satellite dish antenna - 1009 Virginia Ave.
Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988, noting that
Staff is recommending approval of the deviation. Staff believes that by
planting a tree of substantial size, adequate screening can be provided to
Virginia and Sunnyoaks Aves.
M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission approve this
request subject to redlining of plans to
indicate the planting of four trees. Motion
fails (3-3-0).
-19-
Discussion ensued regarding the issue of "reasonable" reception; locating these
antennas. in areas that may be inconvenient to applicants, but more convenient
or aesthetic to the community to lessen impact on open space of all residents;
the visibility of this particular antenna all the way down Sunnyoaks Ave.; and,
the need for an expert advisor to the City.
M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission adopt the
following findings and deny this request for
a deviation from the ordinance. Motion
carried (4-2-1).
Findings:
(1) Reasonable reception of satellite
delivered signals could be obtained by
relocating the satellite dish to the rear
yard.
(2) A rear yard location of the satellite
dish would be less visable from public
street, and conform with the requirements of
the municipal code.
(3) No evidence has been presented to
demonstrate that location of the satellite
dish antenna to the rear yard would impose
unreasonable costs on the applicant.
~c ~ ~
UP 88-04 Request of Mrs. Sherry Groo for refund of
Groo, S. application fee - 131 Hardy Ave.
Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988, noting that
Staff is recommending a refund of $250.
Chairman Christ noted a letter received (attached hereto) requesting the entire
$400 application fee be refunded.
Commissioner Dickson concurred with the applicant's position, because he felt
that the City did not look at everything before asking the applicant to incur
the costs.
Commissioner Perrine disagreed, noting that the City Attorney introduced the
option to the applicant.
Commissioner Kasolas felt that the Council should be the authority to determine
the amount of the refund.
M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the Planning Commission recommend that
the City Council refund $200 of the
applicant's fee because of the amount of
Staff time expended. Motion carried (5-1-1,
with Commissioner Dickson voting "no").
-zo-
M 88-17 Modification to a previously approved Use
UP 87-18 Permit - Jiffy Lube - 1387 Camden Ave. -
Jiffy Lube C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning
District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of August 9, 1988.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is of the opinion that the
requested change to eliminate the proposed wood trim addresses a potential
maintenance problem, and that the problem can be solved by the Architectural
Advisor and the Planning Director. Therefore, the Committee is recommending
that the wood trim be eliminated and that the doors be painted; and, that the
matter be resolved to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and the
Architectural Advisor.
M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That M 88-17 be approved as per the
recommendation of the Site and Architectural
Review Committee. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
~ * ~
Staff Report Continued Staff Report regarding Crockett
Avenue Area.
M/S: Stanton, Dickson - That this matter be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of October 11, 1988 due to
the lateness of the hour. Motion carried
unanimously (6-0-1).
Commissioner Perrine asked if a subcommittee could be formed to devote some
time to this issue and to come back with a public hearing date .
Commissioner Kasolas noted that ~~2 on page 2 of the Staff Report (General
Plan/Zoning amendments to permit higher residential densities) is really a
policy question.
Chairman Christ indicated there may be other alternatives that have not been
looked at, noting the Pinn Brothers project on Smith Ave.
s~~~
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Subcommittee Reports Site & Architectural Review Procedure
Subcommittee; Tree Preservation Committee;
Site & Architectural Review Committee.
There were no subcommittee reports at this time.
~ ~ ~
-21-
OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY THE COMMISSION
Commissioner Dickson asked if Staff could provide a report on what continuances
are based on, and how they might be reduced. He noted that there have been 14
items continued from this evening's agenda.
Commissioner Stanton noted that some of the continuances are a result of the
Site Committee trying to force people to achieve a higher degree of quality in
their projects .
"X X 7Y
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting
was adjourned at 11:58 p.m.
APPROVED: Ronald W. Christ
Chairman
ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee
Secretary
RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis
Recording Secretary
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS - S 88-06
SITE ADDRESS: 525 E. HAMILTON AVE.
APPLICANT: POOL, PATIO & THINGS
PC MTG: 8-9-88
1. The proposed project is an appropriate scale in relationship to the
adjacent developed uses.
2. The building design with modifications is considered acceptable by the
Architectural Advisor.
3. The parking provided is considered adequate due to the nature of a retail
furniture outlet.
4. The project is of a high quality design and will be aesthetically pleasing.
5. Substantial landscaping has been provided which adds to the aesthetics of
the project.
~ * ~
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FILE 4i S 88-06
SITE ADDRESS: 525 E. HAMILTON AVE.
APPLICANT: POOL, PATIO & THINGS, INC.
PC MTG DATE: 8-9-88
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is
_ required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of
the City of Campbell and the Laws of the State of California. Additionally,
the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all
applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of
California which pertain to this development and are not herein specified.
1. Revised elevations and/or site plan indicating improved visibility of
building entrance to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved
by the Planning Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor
prior to application for a building permit.
2. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on
the plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with
the approved plans.
3. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location
of irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and
approved by the Planningt Director prior to application for a building
permit.
4. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of
$3,000.00 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas
within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file written
agreement to complete landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas.
Bond or agreement to be filed with the Planning Department prior to
application for a building permit.
5. Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to
installation of PG&E utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the location
of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the
Planning Director.
6. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Chapter
21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided
with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards.
7. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.36.150 of
the Campbell Municipal Code.
8. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate
clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including
water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc.
9. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign
Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is
approved and permit issued by Planning and Building Departments (Section
21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code).
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FILE 4~ S 88-06
SITE ADDRESS: 525 E. HAMILTON AVE.
APPLICANT: POOL, PATIO & THINGS, INC.
PAGE 2.
10. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any
contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage
and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be
made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all
single-family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial,
business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments.
11. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the
development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department.
Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor
surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size
specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade
level and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service
these containers.
12. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for
the handicapped.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
13. The warehouse has an occupant load of 36 requiring 2 approved exits per UBC
Table 33A. __.
14. The retail space has an occupant load over 500 requiring over 10 feet of
exit widths per UBC Sect. 3303(b).
15. Provide additional information regarding the materials to be stored in the
warehouse so occupancy group can be determined.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
16. Applicant to satisfy conditions of the Traffic Engineer regarding vehicles
exiting onto Almarida Dr.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
No comments at this time.
~ ~ ~
-+ • ^M . ~
~. • ~
).'M~`J
I. ~ '~
~ ~f
r
0
.r "'_ .
s es-o6
S2S E. HAMILTON
f h~ h
'1~
• . ~~
AVE.
RECOMMMENDED FINDINGS: S 88-09
SITE ADDRESS: 14495 S. BASCOM AVE.
APPLICANT: ARMANN, K.
P. C. MTG.: 8-9-88
1. The proposed project is an appropriate scale in relationship to the
adjacent developed uses.
2. The building design is considered acceptable and interesting by the
Architectural Advisor.
3. The parking provided meets/exceeds the code requirements of 6 spaces
per doctor..
4. Substantial landscaping has been provided which adds to the aesthetics
of the project.
x ~ •~
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FILE ~~ S 88-09
SITE ADDRESS: 14495 S. BASCOM AVE.
APPLICANT: ARMANN, K.
°C MTG DATE: 8-9-88
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she
is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the
Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the Laws of the State of
California. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is
required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of
Campbell and the State of California which pertain to this development and
are not herein specified.
1. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red
on the plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in
accordance with the approved plans.
2. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and
location of.irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning
Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee
and/or Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount
of $3,000 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking
areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file
written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing, and striping of
parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed with the Planning
Department prior to application for a building permit.
a. Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to
installation of PG&E utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the
location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for
approval of-the Planning Director.
5. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be
screened as approved by the Planning Director.
5. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are
installed.
7. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with
Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to
be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards.
8. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.36.150
of the Campbell Municipal Code.
9. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall
indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground
utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television
cables, etc.
10. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the
Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until
application is approved and permit issued by Planning and Building
Departments (Section 21.53 of the Campbell Municipal Code).
S 88-09
-2- AUGUST 9, 1988
11. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any
contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet
garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell
shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement
applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to
all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction
establishments.
12. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the
development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire and
Planning Departments. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall
consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and
have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department.
All enclosures to be constructed at grade level and have a level area
adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers.
13. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City
requirements for the handicapped.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
14. Retaining walls at property lines are limited to a height of 15 inches
if constructed of wood.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
15. Openings in exterior walls shall be projected less than 10' from the
property line.
16. Line between front units appears to block passageway from interior
court.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
No comments at this time.
??~/~B
~~
~~T
.`
`` \
\ `~
'~ ~//t0 ,
~~
?~ _
~ .`~~\'
3~~
r~~~
~ ~
~~/
r~
/-
g/3
-~-/
~ /
Or
20'!/Z~~
1 1. 1
r ~ ~ 64/46
~ ~ b
\ 14/26 ,(y' ^~ ~~
~ G 26 P ~~ bo
~ 8 9 ~i ~ ~
S 88-09
~ ~own,n Ve 495 S BASCOM A
.~
F 350/23 ~ o~.-
~ 16N56 D
` u
f!`K9 ~~
~' °~en M'b, e c
p~ `~ ~ ,
O 00 ~°° c
O ~P °~ _
h~
f4
4;
I
it
~~PR~~~ _ _ ~ ~~~
~ _• o
~~
'_`~ _.
~ ~ ~~-
~~ ` ~~
~~
' s°~,o GOOD SAMARITAN
Zug/4n ~ ~ HOSPITAL
0
X62 / 31
160/52
~ 3q'1/'~9
~ 20T/ IT
~ Dr.
IGO /52 311/33 297/3
2 g 0/ 39
~0'i/ '~1 Z1g/18 t ~r
venn
Vennd
Brink's Cleaners
1763 S. Winchester Blvd
Campbell, Ca 95GG8
August 9, 1988
Address to City Council Meeting RE: UP 88-07, Nome Church
The application for change of Use Permit reflect the property
known as 1739, 1755 and 1757 S. Winchester L31vd. The property known
as 1763 S. Winchester Blvd (Brink's Cleaners)is also included in
the sale to the Home Church contingent upon City Council approval'
of change of Use Permit.
Under such conditions with only 4~ years remaining of our
existing lease with no option to renew we are unable to sell, unable
to recoup our investment= depreciate existing equipment or amortize
an additional loan of $40~OOU used to up-date our equipment.
When our family first bought into Campbell Shopping Center their
was an IMPLIED WARRANTY that it was indeed a C-2-S (General Commercial}
Zoning District and for this reason we invested heavily with the
faith in our ability to make a success of our investment. Our faith
and dedication paid off and we were able to increase our business
by almost 100% in 22 years of providing excellent service to satisfied
customers in our area. All profits were re-invested into the business
for future grouth.
A Teen Center is a noble endeavor, but I wonder how manx members ~
of the Home Church (Who would bear the brunt of financing this project)
realize the effect it would have on existing businesses. Alb's who
has had his Barber Shop in the same location for the past twenty years
would be forced out in the autumn of his years. Brink's Cleaners with
only 4%2 years remaining on their lease would be forced out along with
four working members of my family. The people of Campbell would be
deprived of a service they have indicated they have enjoyed and
appreciated.
When the Home Church made solicitations for endorsement to their
petition for a Teen Center in this location they did not reflect the
affect it would have in the existing small businesses. Last Sunday I
attempted to distribute a "Fact Sheet" to the members of the Home Church
reflecting the "other side of the coin". In the true tradition of the
Communist Country I fled from, members•of the Home Church acting as
self-appointed censors removed the flyers from the cars. Any Home
Church member who was deprived of knowing the whole truth may pick up
a copy at my shop.
We were forced out of our country six years ago. I do not choose
to be forced out of the business we have worked so hard to develop. We
therefore respectfully request that a change in Use Permit be denied
and that aforementioned properties continue to be zoned C-2-S (General
Commercial.
Thank you for your attention,
HOA UONG
PROP
'~~ X22-z ~ -~,t-E ~.~ti~ze ~...~~~- t 1~ ~
'`~
~'~~~~ ~- ~~ ~' ~ Lucy- 3 ~.~.~' ~ km ~h~
a ~~ ~
~.~. ~~ r ~~ .mac- ~ ~c,~ a.~ _ ~ ~-a.- `~h~-Q-Q.-
lr~ U (~'Z¢- Q-v~y ~, Lf ,c~~C~-z ~r. o7iZ, .-C.~ Q~~2
~ d ~~%k-c
~,~-t.~.~.c-~.~.,, ~' c~v~,~-z,~_,~ Zu-a-~-- ,~-~.C,.-lam ~. .~,~
-~.~-ems,
~,~~,~~ ~=~~' C~~~,~--~.~~ ~~. c~-t.~.~ L~'~,-,,.,nu'~~.~,,: ~i~~~ to
'4~` ~
~, c
i" ~
1. ~ ~ /`i2-~- ,/~ ~~ ~ f~l/rl/~ r
'v. k' ` _
,: ~..
~~ '~ 1 9
V ~ : l J V( /
w 11
~x (',
August 9,1988
City Hall of Campbell
Planning Commission
70 North First Street
Campbell, California
95008
To: The Planning Commission
Re: Refund Request of Application Fee (400.00)
On receiving your latest Staff Report on August 6th, 1988, we read the
"Staff Recommendation" to refund only a partial amount of our $400.00
Application Fee filed on May 5th, 1988. May I point out that a
contradictory figure of both $200.00 and $250.00 are both quoted in
the letter as a recommended refund amount.
*see "Staff Recommendation" paragraph (200.00), and also the last
paragraph under "Staff Discussion" (250.00).
The reasons listed for only recommending a partial refund were as
follows:
- "this matter has been published for hearing in
the press"
- "mailouts have been done to surrounding property
owners"
- "substantial staff time has been expended"
Allow me to present our side of this issue.
On February 25th, 1988 we first filed for our permits presenting
our plans in triplicate as requested and providing a 1/3 down payment
of $90.62.
Within one week we were notified by Tim Haley that "we needed to
provide an easement to allow us access to our rear property". This
was discussed with our neighbor at 117 Hardy Avenue, Ms. Neva Laederich.
She was not in agreement with an easement as it would change her deed,
but she was in agreement to sign a lease agreement existing between
herself, and us (Eric and Shery Groo). We were informed that a "Lease
Agreement" would not be acceptable, and in fact the only acceptable and
available options remaining would be "to provide an easement" or "to
file a $400.00 Variance Form" in order to obtain the appropriate permits
we were requesting.
-_ ~. ..
As we eventually found out in the meeting of July 26th, 1988, this was
in fact false or misleading information as a Lease agreement was
eventually accepted, and the $400.00 dollar Variance Form was not
required or considered.
In outline form allow me to demonstrate the time, expense and frustration
we have incurred:
- Our original filing date and submission of triplicate
blue prints was on February 25th, 1988
- one week later, March 1st, we were informed of the
need for an "easement" or "Variance" to be filed
prior to issuance of permits
- Neva Laederich waked a personal visit to City Hall to
discuss reasons for non-acceptability of a "lease
agreement" that would exist between herself, and
Eric and Shery Groo. All above mentioned were present
when discussing details with Tim Haley
- Time was taken by myself to discuss this situation with
two separate attorneys familiar with Campbell laws and
real estate prior to filing the multi paged "Variance
Form" along with submission of $400.00 application fee -
Attorneys both advised me that "there was no way our
request could be denied due to the fact that we were
providing what the Variance Form and the City of
Campbell were requesting".
- Time required to fill-in the multi-paged Variance form,
type and photograph the surrounding properties, include
environmental impact descriptions and provide the $400.00
dollars required to file the form.
- Lost wages for time required away from work to appear
before the Planning Commission on June 14th, 1988 at
8:OOam, along with our personal time required to appear
before the Planning Commission on the evenings of June
14th, 1988, July 12th, and July 26th, 1988 each time at
7 : 30pm
As we see ~t we were provided false information by the Planning Department
from the very beginning, making all the above mentioned items entirely
unecessary to start with. This mis-information has cost us in the
following areas:
- TIME': - we are now in the month of August, six months
after our original filing date for permits,
six months that could have been spent on the
building project of our garage conversion
- TIME:: - away from work and other.cammittments to
appear before the Planning Commission
- MONEY!! - $400.00 dollars spent to file a needless
Variance Form, having been mislead from
the very beginning with inaccurate information
- MONEY!! -from lost wages in time away from work to
appear before the Planning Commission
- MONEY:! - to photograph, develope film, type and xerox
copies of various letters and forms submitted
to City Hall and the Planning Commission
In closing we feel full refund of our $400.00 is completely in line and
that we should be compensated entirely for all the above stated reasons.
Had we been provided with the correct information by the Planning Department
from the very beginning - we would have never had to appear before the
Planning Commission, file any additional forms, provide any additional
funds ($400.00), or been delayed these past six. months on obtaining our
permits. This "Variance Form" is the entire reason we were brought before
the Planning Commission to begin with. We feel this is your error and
we have already incurred enough frustration, along with time and money
lost, and therefore should not have to further be sacrificed by not
receiving our full $400.00 dollar refund. And you, would have saved your
yourselves "press and Mailout Fees". We will await your decision and will
persue this issue further if it is not resolved satisfactorily.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Sincerely,
l
Mrs. Shery Groo
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: SA 88-33
SITE ADDRESS: 2210 S. WINCHESTER BLVD.
APPLICANT: ACME & SONS
P. C. MTG. 8-9-88
1. The proposed sign design is architecturally compatible to this office
building design.
2. The size and number of proposed signs is reasonable for this office use
and is consistent with purposes set forth in Section 21.53.010 of the
sign ordinance.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Approval of a second wall mounted sign for this office use is granted in lieu
of a freestanding sign typically permitted for an office use. Planning
Commission approval would be required for a freestanding sign.
~ ~ ~
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SITE ADDRESS: 400 UNION AVE.
LANDS OF DAYEN ET AL
PC 8-9-88
1. Installation of a sanitary sewerage system to serve all lots within the
subdivision in conformance with the proposed plans of the County of Santa
Clara Sanitation District No. 4. Sanitary sewerage service to be provided
by said District No. 4.
2. Installation of a water distribution system to serve all lots within the
subdivision in conformance with the plans of the San Jose Water Works.
Water service to be provided by said water company. Fire hydrants and
appurtenances shall be provided and installed at the locations specified by
the Fire Chief, Fire Department, City of Campbell. Fire hydrant
maintenance fees shall be paid to City at the rate of $195 per fire
hydrant.
3. Subdivider shall create or provide any public service easement and any
other public utility and/or public service easements as may be necessary
for the installation of any and all public utilities and/or facilities.
4. Compliance with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions of the Campbell
Municipal Code.
5. Subdivider to furnish copy of Preliminary Title Report.
6. CC&R's to be approved by City Engineer to insure provisions for maintenance
of buildings and common area.
7. Provide a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the City
Engineer.
8. Obtain an excavation permit and pay fees and deposit for all work in the
public right-of-way.
9. Pay a fee of $23,772.00 in lieu of dedication of land for parks.
10. Reimburse the City the cost of the street improvements installed in Union
Ave.
Z
r
i
~ ~~
0
~~~
~~s ~
~ ~~ r
~ ~~
• I 'T
.....:~ ~
t, - ~,
e;
! ~ I ~
/ ~ I~
~, ~~~
-,
i ~ ~
~ i
~\ V ~
~i
'j 'I
i ~
~ r'
;~
N I
~•-~~
-T' ~ ~ ~
N
_~ ~ r
r ~~
,~
r- ;
J Z .
.~ v
< Y
~ _~
~i 'i.
:.. ~ :~
-,.---
:; ,
--y
3 '~
1 - - - -,.r.,,- ---- - ---
L 1 -- ~-} ---a-~ 2
I~. r 4~- ! ._. _ _ ~
~ }~`'
1 ~ ~ ~ ~`
~ ';
J
I ~ i 'd~~
?VT
~J ~~~_ ~/ II ~~~
~Py} -~so~_1 -..._.._.~.~~ -.
~J ~_. _ .. __ '-.
~ 1 ~~Irany ~~oln~
i
~ 1•' .lnh I
Pry
v
e W~
~~ - t-
~ .
~~. ~
JI ~~
1 I ~~~
'o
--.-~~ a A
'• I ~ .
~,
1
~..
~~
~:
~~
=
~:
a
•
:C
~i
i:
y
i=;;C
e ~.i:~ E
:`
i
L::
_..
:w L
..
~sai _ ~
e
e:
:,!:
iy is ..~':i ~'g$
~~ "ai a~:r r~ x
w ~~ ~ii:i ~~~
s~
~ _
~ ~~~ ~~
#~ ~~~~
~~~t ~ ~
~ ~~~~
~ ~~ ~
i ~~ ~ ti~~
.~~,...~
r
Z I
cW i
L ~
~.
~ I ~ ~~~~~ ~' ~
~ ~_ t_ . ~i~j i ~ ~ ,c~~si
: s ~ ~s~s~r~'sj i r ! a.l~j.
ii '~` ~+3~3j~i[si
fff~L~~~~~Q~` S Ei~~~
~~~^ .i ~_
{ ~ Y ~
,~
~~ K•
Zrr~=
VI J
~`
C