Loading...
PC Min 07/26/1988PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES JULY 26, 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: Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker, Dickson, Christ; Planning Director Arthur Kee; Planner II Marty Woodworth; Engineering Manager Bill Helms; City Attorney Bill Seligmann; Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Kasolas. M/S: Perrine, Walker That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 1988 be approved with the following corrections: Pg. 1 - Approval of Minutes - Commissioner Olszewski noted that he had reviewed the minutes of June 28, 1988; and (2) - Adjournment - M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the meeting be adjourned due to the lateness of the hour. Motion carried 4-2-1. Motion to approve minutes of July 12, 1988 carried unanimously (6-0-1). COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director Kee noted that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda. Commissioner Dickson stated that he had received a letter from the Campbell Merchants Association regarding the Home Church application, and a letter from Fanelli Consulting regarding the Department of Motor Vehicles issue on this evenings agenda. Staff indicated that each Commissioner had received identical correspondence. 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. ~ ~ ~ -2- CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Christ directed that items 1, 14, 15, and 16 on this evening's agenda be considered under Consent Calendar. M/S: Perrine, Walker That Staff Recommendation be followed on the following items: TS 88-05; UP 87-22; SA 88-18; and SA 88-23. Motion carried 6-0-1, with Commissioner Dickson voting "no" on TS 88-05. TS 88-05 Lands of NADCON Tentative Subdivision Map - Lands of NADCON Development - 454 W. Sunnyoaks Ave. - APN 406-09-005. M/S: Perrine, Walker That the Planning Commission find the proposed map to be in accord with the General Plan; and, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve this TS 88-05, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report of July 26, 1988. Motion carried 5-1-1, with Commissioner Dickson voting "no" and Commission Kasolas being absent. UP 87-22 Review of approved Use Permit - 948 Crockett Maj, S. Ave. - hobby kennel. M/S: Perrine, Walker - That the Planning Commission note and file this report. Motion carried 6-0-1. SA 88-19 Continued signing request - Church of Austin-Birke Signs Religious Science - 730 Camden Ave. - M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. M/S: Perrine, Walker That SA 88-19 be withdrawn from the Planning Commission agenda at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). SA 88-23 Continued signing request - Campbell Travel Best Awning Service - 389 E. Campbell Ave. - PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. M/S: Perrine, Walker - That SA 88-23 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). * ~ -3- PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 88-04 Continued public hearing to consider the Groo, E. application of Mr. and Mrs. Eric Groo for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing garage to living area on property known as 131 Hardy Ave. in an R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending a continuance to August 9, 1988 so that the applicant can provide evidence of a lease agreement with the adjacent property owner to provide access to the rear garage. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. Mrs. Sherry Groo explained that the agreement should be ready to submit early next week; and, asked about the permit process. Commissioner Dickson suggested that this item be approved this evening, conditioned upon the agreement being submitted for the approval of the City Attorney. Commissioner Olszewski indicated his hesitancy to act on this matter, recalling that there were a number of issues, including driveways, landscaping strips, and relocating of gas meters, brought up at the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting. Commissioner Olszewski suggested that a decision on this matter should wait until revised plans are available for review. Commissioner Stanton noted that the situation is merely a lack of 3" in driveway width to access the covered parking in the rear yard. Planning Director Kee stated that Staff would make sure that the necessary driveway width be provided if the Commission wishes to move ahead on this application. If the appropriate width is not provided, the applicant could bring the issue back to the Commission. Commissioner Olszewski noted his concern for the disposition of the easternmost driveway that goes up to the attached garage to be converted to living area. Mrs. Groo stated that the original driveway, which Commissioner Olszewski spoke of, was to be removed and the area to be landscaped. Chairman Christ noted that there had also been a concern expressed about relocating the PG&E meter to provide additional driveway access along the side of the house. Commissioner Walker stated that he was not concerned with the original driveway remaining because it could provide the applicant with off-street parking. He noted that the easement is for access to the rear of the lot - not for parking. -4- Mr. Kee stated that Staff is of the understanding that the applicant has agreed to remove the original driveway that goes up to the garage which is being converted to living space. M/S: Dickson, Olszewski - That the public hearing on UP 88-04 be closed. Motion carried (6-0-1). M/S: Dickson, Olszewsk - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2542, including findings and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of June 14, 1988, approving UP 88-04 subject to the added conditions that a lease agreement be approved by the City Attorney, and that the plans show the removal of the original driveway. In addition, the lease should indicate that it will remain in effect at all times during the approved use. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker, Dickson, Christ NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas ~ ~ ~ M 88-13 Continued public hearing to consider the Vagts, H. application of Mr. and Mrs. Hale Vagts for approval of a second-story addition to an existing single family residence on property known as 606 Lisa Way in a PD (Planned Development/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval of the site and architecture of the addition. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S: Dickson, Stanton - That the public hearing on M 88-13 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). Discussion Commissioner Olszewski expressed difficulty supporting approval of this application because it involves a zero lot-line development which is already dense, and any additions to these structures increase the density. Commissioner Olszewski continued that he did not think the addition was harmonious with the zero lot-line development, even though the site and architectural portion of the application does blend with the existing structure. -5- M/S: Walker, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt findings and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of July 26, 1988, and recommend that the City Council approve M 88-13. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Stanton, Perrine, Walker, Dickson, Christ NOES: Commissioners: Olszewski ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas * * ~ S 88-07 Continued public hearing to consider the Varrelmann, R. application of Mr. Robert Varrelmann for approval of plans to allow the construction of an industrial building on property known as 418 Industrial St. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending approval. Mr. Woodworth added that sidewalks are being required by the Public Works Department and this condition can only be removed by the City Council. Staff is of the opinion that the provided parking should be adequate since this is a small project. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The applicant has addressed all the concerns brought up by the Committee and approval is recommended. The Committee, at the last meeting, felt that sidewalks were not necessary for this project because of the lack of sidewalks on adjacent properties; however, based on the Commission's finding that a sidewalk should be provided, the applicant was able to provide adequate landscaping on the site although a 15" pine tree will be removed to accommodate the sidewalk. Ms. Eleanor Choy, owner of fourplex on Kennedy Ave., asked what the building would be used for, and noted her concern with the already heavy traffic on the street. Mr. Dana Carren, subject property owner, stated that the building will be occupied by himself and will be used for a cabinet shop. M/S: Walker, Dickson - That the public hearing on S 88-07 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt the findings and conditions indicated in the Staff Report of July 26, 1988, and approve S 88-07. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: -6- Discussion Commissioner Walker supported the motion, but asked that the record show that he does not support. the provision of a sidewalk on the project for aesthetic reasons and because there are other newly developed projects in the area which do not have sidewalks. Commissioner Olszewski supported the motion, noting that his comments paralleled Commissioner Walker's. Fairly new projects adjacent to the subject property do not have sidewalks, making this project an island which reflects poorly on the City. Additionally, the provision of a sidewalk required the removal of a large tree. Commissioner Olszewski continued that the Council may wish to remove the condition for a sidewalk. Commissioner Dickson noted that the only way the City is going to get sidewalks is by requiring them to be constructed - even if it is done one property at a time. Commissioner Perrine agreed with Commissioner Dickson, noting that the records may show that the adjacent properties should have constructed sidewalks. Chairman Christ noted his agreement with Commissioners Dickson and Perrine regarding the sidewalk issue. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker, Dickson, Christ NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas ~ ~ S 88-08 Public hearing to consider the application of Varrelmann, R. 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. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending a continuance. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending a continuance with the applicant's concurrence. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. Ms. Eleanor Choy asked about the square footage of the building, and the square footage of the office use. -7- M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - That the public hearing on S 88-08 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). ~ *~ UP 88-03 Continued public hearing to consider the Fosters Freeze application of Dacara, Inc., for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a drive-thru restaurant on property known as 2200 S. Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending approval of this project. Referring to a request from the Commission which asked for input from the Police Department regarding problems caused by other fast food uses in the immediate area, Mr. Woodworth noted that a memorandum from the Police Department (on file) indicates that although fast food restaurants to create some problems, this use will probably not increase problems in the area. Chairman Christ noted that a concern had been expressed about noise from customers using the parking area for eating, etc., and that this concern was not addressed in the Staff Report. Mr. Woodworth reported that the applicant has indicated a desire to use the parking spaces closest to the residential area for employee parking only; and, the owner has indicated that he would enforce this policy. Chairman Christ explained the memorandum from the Police Department to the audience, noting that only 5 reportable crimes have been indicated for Fosters Freeze for the reporting period. Commissioner Walker asked if consideration had been given to closing off the rear parking area after certain hours. Mr. Woodworth indicated that this parking area could be restricted, and is set up to provide for being roped off; however, there may be a question as to whether the remaining parking would be adequate. Commissioner Stanton asked if the traffic report addressed traffic issues further down Bascom Ave. Engineering Manager Helms responded that the study was confined to the development and whether the project would cause any problems in the neighborhood that are not already there. This does not imply that people are not having difficulty on these streets at times. -8- Commissioner Stanton expressed a concern that "other types of nuisances" was not mentioned in the memorandum from the Police Department. Information that _ has come to Commissioner Stanton indicates complaints to the Police Department about trash from other fast food restaurants in the area, even though the other restaurants have "barriers" of office or day care uses between them and the residential uses. A concern was also expressed regarding the creation of a "high school turf" situation, and information was not provided to deal with this type of situation. Commissioner Walker asked if the requested drive-thru was a second use permit for this property, noting that perhaps the use permit specifically for~the drive-thru could be terminated if problems arose. City Attorney Seligmann stated that the existing restaurant use did not require a use permit at the time of construction. The requested use permit just refers to the drive-thru use; and, the use permit could be rescinded with appropriate findings that found the use detrimental to the neighborhood. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The architecture of this structure does set a standard for improving the buildings along Bascom Ave., and the Architectural Advisor feels that the design is exceptional. The Site .Committee has encouraged the applicant to share the parking with See's Candy next door, therefore providing for better use of parking and site circulation. The applicant has addressed the concerns expressed about the noise by including landscaping in front of the existing sound wall; and, repairs to the rear sound wall will be made as suggested by the sound engineering consultant. The drive-thru portion will enclose the vehicles with a variety of walls, ranging in height to 16', with the intention of taking the sound out towards Bascom Ave. and in no way going towards the residential area. The Site Committee is recommending approval of the site layout and the building architecture. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. Mr. Jim Chou, architect, reviewed the sound angles as presented in the report by Pack & Associates, emphasizing that the acoustics engineer indicates that noise made by this particular use, and with the architectural design of the building, will be less than the noise from the residential uses. The engineer indicated that the wall around the drive-thru is not really necessary for acceptable sound levels in the residential area because of the 6' sound wall in the rear of the property; however, the plans maintain the drive-thru wall for consideration of the neighbors as well as for the design features of the building. Mr. Chou noted his previous discussion with the Police Department regarding enforcement and patrolling procedures in this area. Responding to questions from the Commission, Mr. Chou discussed the architectural design of the building, including the .open dining area in the front, design features to break up the front elevations, provision of awnings, contrasts and angles; the issue of motors running on delivery trucks having been resolved by the owners; the location of the trash enclosure and the method by which trash will be picked up in the front of the site; the issue of restricting parking in the rear lot being studied during the review period; and, the applicant welcoming a 6-month review by the Commission. -9- Commissioner Stanton asked if the applicant has had further meetings with the residents. Mr. Chou stated that no further meetings have been held with the residents, noting that the consistency of the comments from the first meeting with the residents and from the public hearing, the applicant felt that the message was made quite clear; therefore, the project was completely redesigned to address those concerns. Mr. John Wagner, 1058 Shady Dale, opposed the project because of noise and traffic, stating that he did not feel that the noise concerns had been addressed. Mr. Wagner asked questions about the location of the ordering box, the wall height, and distances between the restaurant and residential uses; and, expressed concern with trash being thrown intothe neighborhood, the visibility problems for traffic entering Bascom Ave., and the noise and traffic the proposed use could entail. Mr. Steve Caruso, 1069 Bent Dr., disagreed about the adequacy of a 6 foot sound wall, noting that a previously used microphone system at the restaurant could be heard from down the block. Mr. Caruso asked about the size and type of trees proposed for the rear parking area, noting he would like to see large, fast growing trees planted which would provide a dense wall; noted that he would like to see a sound wall higher than 6 feet in the rear; and, stated that the sound level from the speaker box should be limited. Mr. Charles Purnell, 1079 Shady Dale, expressed concern with traffic visibility and circulation in the area; with vehicles backing out onto Bascom Ave.; with the project having two driveways; and with potential parking problems from the commercial uses. Mr. John Chargin, 1059 Bent Dr., spoke at length regarding his concerns on the project, including: the level of noise from the speaker. box; difficulty of accessing Bascom Ave.; problems caused by additional driveways; the traffic report not addressing the stated concerns; the Police Department not having done a hand search, or not providing a record of noise complaints; and, a survey not being done of residents near other fast food uses. Mr. Chargin continued that he would like to see a higher sound wall; that he is strictly opposed to the proposed use; that the sound study was made during 2 or 3 hours in the day, but the noise would be worse at night and this was not addressed in the report; that he did not think there was a competent traffic engineer's report of what is going to happen on the site when the drive-thru is completed; that a new traffic report is needed; that a sound report addressing the problems is needed; that not enough information has been provided on the noise levels, since no one came into his back yard; and, noted the grade difference between See's Candy and the Foster Freeze site because it makes a difference in the wall height. Chairman Christ referred the speaker to a section in the sound study which discussed the ordering box; noted that it is not planned to increase the grade of the Foster's site to bring it to the same level as Sees; noted that this is - not a unique situation, and that there are areas all over town where commercial and residential areas abut. Chairman Christ noted that the City tries very hard to mitigate adverse situations. -10- Mr. Purnell asked about the type of trees planned; the proposed drainage; and easements. Mr. Helms indicated that Condition 19 in the Staff Report requires the submittal of a grading and drainage plan, and that it is the policy of the City to require drainage into the public system. M/S: Walker, Perrine - That the public hearing on UP 88-03 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). Discussion Commissioner Olszewski stated that testimony from the public shows that raising the height of the rear fence should be considered; however, past actions by the Commission has been to approve walls up to 8 feet in height. The design of the site has really addressed the concerns brought up by the public. The problems expressed seem to be classic when commercial uses abut residential uses, although these uses need to be compatible. Commissioner Olszewski felt that this project provided an opportunity to create a better situation through the project design, landscaping, sound buffers, and aesthetics; that this project would send out a positive signal to other development along Bascom Ave.; and that the traffic report was adequate. Commissioner Walker agreed with an increased rear wall height; asked for input regarding volume control on the speaker box; asked about the utility easement between the residential and commercial properties; and, questioned the time in which the noise study was done, noting that the lunch hour was not included. M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this project; and, that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 2543, incorporating findings and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of July 26, 1988, approving UP 88-03 with the following added conditions: (1) Landscaping plan to include a rear wall of between 8 and 9 feet for the entire length of the rear property line. Discussion on motion Commissioner Stanton opposed the motion, noting that although he accepted the quality of the design and the efforts put forth to address concerns, he felt that there was still a need for the developer to establish a discussion with the neighbors. There is a chance to come back with a development that is acceptable to a majority of residents. Additionally, Commissioner Stanton felt that the use lends itself to problems that the City is not going to be able to control. Commissioner Dickson expressed his concern with car noise and people noise, noting that the rear parking area could be an attractive nuisance which creates car and people noise. Additionally, the higher walls tend to violate the open space of people living behind them, as well as limit the sunlight; and, the office window should not be looking over the residential area. Commissioner Dickson concluded that he did not think the applicant has demonstrated that this use will not be detrimental to the public. -11- Commissioner Walker asked if the review period could be changed from 6 months -- to 3 months; and, if left-hand turns could be eliminated if necessary. Chairman Christ disagreed with the applicant having to meet with the residents, noting that the applicant seems very clear on their concerns. He continued that the office window issue can be addressed by requiring sight-obscuring glass; however, he could not support the motion until the issue of restricting parking in the rear parking area was addressed to insure that a nuisance will not be created for the neighborhood. Commissioner Olszewski indicated that he could support the issue of a barrier design coming back with the landscaping plan. Upon consensus of the Commission, the motion was amended to include design and height of rear wall, tree types and sizes, landscaping, rear parking area restriction/barrier after 10:00 p.m. or to be discussed at the time the plans are presented, and a 6 and 9 month review. M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this project; and, that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 2543, incorporating findings and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of July 26, 1988, approving UP 88-03 with the following added conditions: (1) Landscaping plan to include a rear wall of between 8 and 9 feet for the entire length of the rear property line; types and sizes of trees for the rear property line area; and, design and discussion of barrier/restrictions of rear parking area; and (2) Review of traffic and circulation issues and drive-thru use at 3 months and at 6 months of date of occupancy. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Perrine, Olszewski, Walker, Christ NOES: Commissioners: .Stanton, Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas The Commission directed Staff to notify the speakers on this issue of the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting when this matter is agendized. M 88-15 Public hearing to consider the application of Piedemonte, W. Mr. William Piedemonte for a modification to an approved building usage to allow the establishment of a State Department of Motor Vehicles office in an existing building on property known as 430 Darryl Dr. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. -12- Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988. Commissioner Walker asked for information about turning movements on Hamilton Ave. at Darryl Dr. Mr. Gary Kruger, Traffic Engineer, responded that the existing operation at this intersection does back up at peak hours. Staff was of the opinion that the DMV use will cause a significant increase in traffic at this location; therefore, the traffic consultant looked at the signal operations. It was noted that the signals in this area are not operating as effectively as they could; therefore, many of the mitigation measures indicated in the traffic report are directed at increasing the efficiency of the signalization to get more cars through each signal phase. After very extensive analysis, Staff is convinced that the new townhouse development on the corner of Darryl and Gale, and the operation of the DMV, will not increase the problems to such a point that they cannot be mitigated by changing the signal phasing. Commissioner Stanton asked about measures to preclude traffic cutting through on Gale to intersect with Latimer Ave. Mr. Kruger indicated that measures to address this issue have not been discussed as a part of this application. Staff feels that the number of vehicles coming to the DMV from the south will be relatively small. All directional signs for the DMV will be oriented towards Hamilton Ave. and the San Tomas Expressway. Chairman Christ noted the letter (attached hereto) received by the Commission from Fanelli Consulting; and, a letter of opposition from Robert D. Carlson (attached hereto). Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee, and discussion included possible locations for off-site employee parking. The Site Committee is recommending approval subject to the presented revised conditions. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. Ms. Virginia Fanelli, 1175 Saratoga Ave., San Jose, stated that considerable time has been spent with Staff and the DMV representatives on this issue, as well as in meeting with the neighbors. The proposed use is for a satellite office, which is much smaller than a regular DMV office, as outlined in the Staff Report. The applicant has agreed to buy into a fair share for traffic mitigation. Mrs. Fanelli complimented Mr. Kruger for his assistance in helping the neighbors understand the traffic issues. The applicant will continue to look for 15 off-site parking spaces for employee's use, and asks that the spaces not have to be provided prior to approval but rather that the applicant may come back for approval of the off-site space when they have been obtained. As discussed by Staff, the parking lot will be restriped to provide additional parking. The applicant is also asking that he be allowed to start tenant improvements while he is looking for these additional parking spaces. Aside from these requests, the applicant is in agreement with all the conditions presented. Mrs. Fanelli asked for clarification as to whether they should look for the additional parking spaces, or if 13 on-site designated spaces would be adequate to satisfy the condition of the Public Works Department. ;. 3 - Mrs. Gerry Gohr, 121 Darryl Dr., stated that the residents were encouraged by the Traffic Engineer's statement that he would be helpful to the neighborhood if this situation created problems. She asked that the concerns of the residents be considered if this proposal has an impact on the neighborhood; and, that the additional space not be leased until it is presented to the commission for consideration. Mrs. Anita Lee, Darryl Dr., expressed concern about the neighborhood traffic, noting that there is a large number of vehicles currently using this area to access Hamilton Ave. from the south. She also felt that people taking their driver's test would drive through the neighborhood to familiarize themselves with the area for testing. Mrs. Lee asked that consideration be given for the neighborhood. Commissioner Perrine asked about parking ratios to square footage in other DMV offices. Mr. Roger Aschmann, Barton-Aschmann Associates, reviewed figures from the traffic study, noting that trip generation figures from 8 DMV offices average 270 trips daily rate per 1,000 sq.ft. with a 107. factor during peak hours. The calculations for this particular site were figured using an average value of 180 daily trips per 1,000 sq.ft., resulting in about 150 trips during peak hours. Commissioner Walker asked if this office would be restricted to Campbell residents only; and, how walk-in people will be handled. Mrs. Fanelli indicated that the office was not restricted to serving only certain areas, but is being proposed to relieve pressure on some of the large offices; and, the understanding is that the DMV will attempt to do as much of their business by appointment as possible. M/S: Olszewski, Walker - That the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). Commissioner Olszewski stated that he has thoroughly reviewed this application and whereas he could see it put impact on an area, it could also be good for businesses in the area, therefore being good for City coffers and services. Commissioner Olszewski felt this would be good for the citizens of Campbell. M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - Discussion on motion That the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this project; adopt the findings and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of July 26, 1988; and, approve M 88-15 with the added condition that potential traffic problems be reviewed in 6 months. Commissioner Walker supported the motion, subject to the 6 month review because of his concern about the traffic. Commissioner Walker hoped that this development will not impact Hamilton Ave. any more than it already is; and, that he would hope that the DMV give some preference to Campbell residents if possible. -14- Commissioner Dickson supported the motion. He expressed concern about the impact on the area because of traffic, but thought the the traffic issues could __ be mitigated; and, he thought that the plus factors for City from the development far outweighed the negative factors. Commissioner Perrine stated that he thought the access and traffic problems could be handled with the right modifications; however, he was not satisfied that the parking situation is going to work, especially with the remaining 7,200 sq.ft. of building being empty. Commissioner Perrine felt that this situation is a time bomb, and opposed the motion. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Stanton, Olszewski, Walker, Dickson, Christ NOES: Commissioners: Perrine ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas. ~ ~ ~ S 88-05 Public hearing to consider the application Craig, J. of Mr. James Craig for approval of a site and architectural application to allow the establishment of an industrial storage yard on property known as 145 Kennedy Ave. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending a continuance at this time. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee, and a continuance is recommended. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this time. Mr. James Craig, applicant, concurred with recommendation for continuance and noted that he was aware that he must submit revised plans by September 2, 1988 to be heard on the September 13, 1988 agenda. M/S: Olszewski - That the public hearing on S 88-05 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 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 reported that the applicant is unable to attend this evening's meeting because of illness and she has requested that the item be continued if denial is imminent. -15- Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was previously discussed by the --- Site and Architectural Review Committee, and the plans accurately represent those discussions. Commissioner Perrine asked what became of the Commission's previous action requiring the relocation of the antenna. Planner II Woodworth stated that the applicant went back to the installer who determined that relocating the antenna would not help the situation for anyone. Staff feels that the proposed trees will screen the antenna satisfactorily. Commissioner Dickson stated that it is strange to ask the installer to become the expert on the location since the antenna is already installed. He commented that this particular antenna is visible all the way down Sunnyoaks Ave. and it is not in the best location. Discussion ensued regarding the problems that these antennas would cause until reduced in ,size by technology; the possibility of getting a technical advisor; the intensity of sales on these antennas; the possibility of applicant's absorbing the cost of such an advisor; how to determine "reasonable" reception; aesthetics; and a definition of "reasonable reception". City Attorney Seligmann indicated that reasonable reception has not yet been clearly defined. M/S: Dickson, Perrine - That this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1988. Motion carried (4-2-1, with Commissioners Olszewski and Stanton voting "no"). ~ ~ ~ SA 88-32 Signing request - D & J Hobby - 96 N. San D & J Hobby Tomas Aquino Rd. - C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval of the plans as redlined. The redlining deletes the characters on the sign because they are indistinguishable from a distance. The applicant agrees with this revision. M/S: Perrine, Walker - That the Planning Commission adopt findings and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of July 26, 1988, and approve SA 88-32 as redlined. -16- Discussion on motion Commissioner Dickson opposed the motion because he felt the sign has too much text on it - "Models, Hobbies & Crafts" should not be included on the sign. Vote on motion The motion to approve SA 88-32 carried (vote: 5-1-1, with Commissioner Dickson voting "no", and Commissioner Kasolas being absent). * ~ ~ M 88-08 Review of parking circulation plan - S 86-21 Pruneyard Inn - 1875 S. Bascom Ave. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988. Chairman Christ asked if there would be signing indicating one-way traffic. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Site Committee looked for clear definitions indicating the particular parking lot to be used for the Inn, and not for the rest of the center. The ingress/egress points are to be clearly defined. Because there will not be a gate, the Committee is encouraging the provision of visual indications that the parking is for the Inn only. The applicant would like to have these issues resolved prior to building occupancy, rather than prior to issuance of a building permit so that they can proceed with construction. The Committee would also like to have the traffic circulation signage come back for consideration. Chairman Christ stated his concern about someone using the wrong access, and asked that serious consideration be given to signage that stands out which indicates the circulation pattern to address safety concerns. Commissioner Walker agreed. M/S: Dickson, Walker - -mat-eke-P~ann~eg-Cemm~ssiae-app~euo-tha- CORRECTED AT -presented-crrcu~atson-plan-for-tke-Pr~e}erd MEETING OF -inn---Motion-earr4ed-ttriaa~mens~}~-~g-8-1}r-- 8-9-88. SEE BELOW. ~ ~ ~ Staff Report Continued Staff Report regarding Crockett Avenue Area Study. M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1988, for a full Commission. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). s~ ~ ~ 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 indica- -17- Staff Report Staff Report regarding Planning Commission --- consideration of cancelling meeting of August 23, 1988. Chairman Christ noted that he found it difficult to cancel a meeting because of the length of the agendas recently. Commissioner Dickson thought that it would be helpful to Staff to cancel the meeting because of vacation schedules and the office work load. M/S: Dickson, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 1988 be cancelled. Motion carried (4-2-1, with Commissioners Perrine and Christ voting "no", and Commissioner Kasolas being absent). ~*~c PUBLIC HEARINGS TA 88-04 Continued public hearing to consider a City-initiated City-initiated amendment to Chapter 21.26 (C3 Central Business District) of the Campbell Municipal Code to provide development and use regulations for the downtown area. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S: Dickson, Perrine - That the public hearing on TA 88-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 25, 1988, at the request of the Redevelopment Director. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). GP 88-02 Continued public hearing to consider a City-initiated City-initiated General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan addressing land use policies in the downtown area. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S: Dickson, Perrine - That the public hearing on GP 88-02 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 25, 1988, at the request of the Redevelopment Director. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). -18- ZC 88-04 Continued public hearing to consider the City-initiated City-initiated zone change from PD (Planned Development) to C3 (Central Business District) for properties located within Civic Center Dr. and Orchard City Drive (Downtown Core Area). Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S: Dickson, Perrine - That the public hearing on ZC 88-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 25, 1988, at the request of the Redevelopment Director. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). ~ ~ GP 88-03 Continued public hearing to consider a City-initiated City-initiated General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan modifying the planned extension of Capri Dr. from Hacienda Ave. to W. Sunnyoaks Ave. Engineering Manager Helms reviewed the Staff Report of July 26, 1988. Commissioner Dickson expressed a concern that this extension has been shown on the General Plan for a long time and people have made plans accordingly. Commissioner Stanton noted that interest in reviewing the General Plan has been expressed at the Council level, and perhaps this item should wait until such time as the entire General Plan is reviewed. Commissioner Stanton indicated that the Fire Department usually prefers to travel down non-residential streets. Additionally, he noted that he would like to see a chart showing comparisons of various densities - something that might show him that there were too many townhomes or apartments, and that more high cost homes were what was desired; and, that he sees the whole San Tomas Area as teetering on the brink of change toward nicer homes. Chairman Christ commented that it would be difficult to develop nice homes if there is a street leading to high density development. A buffer can be added by the density and less traffic would encourage a better quality of homes. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S; Walker, Olszewski - That the public hearing on GP 88-03 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). -19- M/S: Walker, Stanton - Discussion on motion That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2544 recommending that the City Council amend the Circulation Element of the General Plan reclassifying Capri Drive north of Hacienda Ave. to a local street and to terminate this street approximately 500 feet north of Hacienda Ave. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: Commissioner Dickson opposed the motion for reasons he has expressed during discussion on this matter at previous meetings. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker, Christ NOES: Commissioners: Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas. ~ ~ ~ SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Subcommittee Reports Site & Architectural Review Procedure Subcommittee; Tree Preservation Committee; Site & Architectural Review Committee. There were no Subcommittee Reports at this time. ~ ~ ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. APPROVED: Ronald W. Christ Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: TS 88-05 LANDS OF NADCON DEVELOPMENT SITE ADDRESS: 454 W. SUNNYOAKS AVE. APN 406-09-005 PC MTG: 7-26-88 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. ~~i 5. Subdivider to pay Storm Drainage Area Fee. 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 including driveway relocation and sidewalk replacement. 9. Pay a fee of 7 924.00 in lieu of dedication of land for parks. ,~`` ,.k,. . - •/ J • ~ ~ ~ ~. Ti~UH U M O V1 •~ 111 A {~ ri O A O.q O ~i J• i• N O ~ O N N 'rl Wit W\ i• O ,-1 O W+>r1M W {~ it ~ EO ~ J M .. o i• . tl ~+ M q r '• q ~ VJ ri b P 10 ~+ Y 10 to C to H cy / d P O i~1 r1 p.~ o o. m .. u A • ti {~ o O v ~+ u t • ~ R u ~ tiWWw O+•ad 0 p p ~O ~ b q O C. ra' O ~.~id ~ ~ Y p i i ~ o ~ ~ O A~ V r ~ ~Of 7 it i i b ~ > W {{..,~ rl ++ O TI it +'1 O 1-1 A m O ~ W Q o - > •.~i yy o •• h r l ? ad ~ ~ ~ w - M L1 O u rl ~o i4 A > ° Y m ~ ~i iq o o W qq0 r Y 8 W M pAq 1171 Oa a7 H b W ~ a~. HU O m ~ F a O cw ~ .1 , v ~ . i ~ i1 .+ ~ m P ~. .. .~.~ .-.r. . w ro q o h +~ z cti ~- t n w >z - N r .. a - w v~ e v e . ~ N M~ - ~ .f IR- '~O !~ N O\ '- •"i _ 'O.-rr+~•..w s>. .r..:.. -.t... .. ~ _.. ~ ~- '~I~b' Syl b0J`NNCI S m I9'BZ/ ~~~.~ ,~o nb~l d~a~a ,oz v,~d •- - ~s ~ - - i WI ~~ qC W '~ -t, oii N s a1y ~ Z ~- a 1 ~. ~ ~ •• 1 i:WVJ 61 1 /S 1-, "fLzz -- r „ '~ '~. ~ N ~ ~ O ~ a~1y,a~~ B~ __^ i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ N ~ /S . oP~~,Qts 1 H ~ ~ 111 N N ~ -~/~ ~ / -----iU ~~' ~~' ~ ---- ~~ _ ~ ~--- - -1 ` 1 c ~ '~A!' ~ N ~ 1 • nl ~ ~ ~' ; I i ~ ~ I v~ ~ \ ' V ~ ~ ~ 1 W II \ ~ 1 ti 1 1 1D i 1~--0~- ~ -------zs~- ~ N ~ ~ ~b ~ 1'> ~ o ~ ti ~ ~~ ~ ~ N- ~ ~ N . O ~ .~ _~ N . y ~ ~ ~ O ' ~ ~ ~ Ill W J .. 1 ,. f -' -~---..~.___ i s 1 1 Z 1 ~ ~ ~ 21ijxQl I.- ~ 1 ~ ~. ~ i ,. ~ • ~- ~ - , N 6Z.'Lb Y- £fc'9F ~ - 6 t L 1. /~ -S'Qrr--. i y~' ~ J ,. ~ ..- 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ /.~' ~ ~ N i Z ~ h ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ h \ / ~ ~ Ofr.Z-- ~9.8zI ~. 0 /-'I ~ ~s ~ = ~ • • Y ~.~J ~• I !y . •. ~~ \ . .:.. .f i ~ '~~-' i ' . t - L ~ _ : ,. w . ~ ' ~ ~. ~ • ~ ~ ~ ,~~I ~ y • • ~ •.. • a/ ~ w • ~ ' ~ ~ -,, i T~ • ~ ~ :, •~ .. ., . I .. ~ w ~ •• ~ , • ~ ~~. - 1 I ~~,~~ ~• -+T ~ ~ .r, ~~~~ iS» ka Aue. ~ .~« ~ GIs. ~, yC 88-O1 ,,, _ ~~ I~ •c~ ~ f ~ _ .., I ~ ii. ~ ~ i. • ' 1 • • ~.. t ~ ~ ~ , •_!• •-~~ . I 1 ~~ s / ~ I ` 1 i I ~. ! k ~ ~ ,,W ~ . / •- ~ \ ' i ~ \~~~'`' ~ 1 ~. ~ ~~ ~ / ~~ • i ~- - ~~- ~ ~~ PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE PLANNING ~-: ~' CO1~II~IISSION ON 4-12-88. RES. 2521 ~. j f~/ ~ REC APPROVAL ZONE CHANGE FROM R-M-S~'' ' ~/ TO PD - NADCON DEV. -VOTE: 4-3-0 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: M 88-13 SITE ADDRESS: 606 LISA WAY APPLICANT: VAGTS, H. j PC MTG: 7-26-88 i 1. The proposed addition is architecturally compatible with the existing building. 2. No windows are provided along the north and south elevations, insuring privacy of adjacent uses. 3. The proposed addition is situated towards the middle of the existing structure, thereby minimizing its impact on adjacent properties. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. Applicant to secure all necessary building permits. --~ O d31D V S , \ ~a.. ~ NO X ` ~~ a~` ~~nd F a ~_ ~ h e ~ i~~ o ° / ~ A: ® ~~ ~~ ~ ~ a 9 D ~~-`~ W la I~ ~~ J T ~(ENDRA~. ° , ~, WAY s.r eon. nor ti rNt~rt fu6o. y, ~ 3 - N /f9 OB.S6 ? . N to '. a ~~ MONA ~.~ a WAY ~ 1 ~. ~~ si p ro~ ~N ro D r C m x v ~u ~ s N J D 's F loop ° I 6e ' 1 - -w m ' 1 N 1 '• a _ fS~ •' NAY/L7DN 1n Z m 13G 60j _ ^' ° c. ~ - ~ '^ ~ I ~ h _ ~ D n e 111 N IYYH7DN tsa rN~raroN 717 X07 ~ 723 7 Z, . !D~ "~ ~~ Gy10 1)4 G~ 169 OS I M r v. - .~ -- W HAMILTON -- -- AVE. ----- - ~ , M 88-12 SN l ~Y /~~ W c!~ ~ A 1. m ig 3 0,~3 Z n~~' ^e~~ ~z-~ ~~~~ y ~ ~:g9 ~n:~x +s R C1 s NN T N ?ty Z s s g MERRIMAC ~ DR. - /~ _- ~ f i e-+- ~i RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: S 88-07 SITE ADDRESS: 418 INDUSTRIAL ST. APPLICANT: VARRELMANN, R. PC MTG: 7-26-88 _ 1. The proposed project is an appropriate scale in relationship to the adjacent developed uses. 2. The project will be well designed and architecturally blends into the neighborhood. 3. The parking provided will be adequate for the use. 4. The project is of a high quality design and will be aesthetically pleasing. 3. Substantial landscaping has been provided which adds to the aesthetics of the project. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FILE ~i S 88-07 SITE ADDRESS: 418 INDUSTRIAL ST. APPLICANT: VARRELMAN, R. PC MTG DATE: 7-26-88 _- 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. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of X5,000.00 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. Applicant to submit a letter to the Planning Department, satisfactory to the City Attorney, prior to application for building permit, limiting the use of the property as follows: 425 sq.ft. of office use; and, 2,432 sq.ft. of industrial/warehouse use. 7. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 8. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. 9. 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. i _._ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FILE 4t S 88-07 SITE ADDRESS: 418 INDUSTRIAL ST. APPLICANT: VARRELMAN, R. PAGE 2. 10. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.36.150 of the Campbell Municipal Code. 11. 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. 12. 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). 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. 16. The applicant is hereby notified that the property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. All existing structures shall be secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 & 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. FIRE DEPARTMENT 17. Building shall conform to requirements for H-3 occupancy which requires two conforming exits. 18. Provide information regarding the use and storage of any hazardous materials. File "Declaration of Hazard Materials". PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 19. Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees, and post surety to install an electrolier, a 5-ft. wide sidewalk, and a driveway approach (8 ft. x 25 ft. with 4 ft. wide slopes at each end). BUILDING DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. - + w ., ~ .. 1.... ~:• ~ . ~'~ V ____ . ~ -t rid ~ ~ I ` J L is ~ . ~ ~~ .- , .. l L .. . i ~~ ~I J . \ •~ _ s' ~. _ _ - i :~~ __ f ~ ___ _ r ` ,. ,1 -- ,\ yet ~ ,,. ~ ,. ~,'~, - ~ .'` QVE. ~ ~~~~ t~ ~ /. ~';c.l Y ~ ~ 7~ y % ~ ~.. I'll I `~1 !j~ !~.- ~, ~.~: ., 1 i ~ / ~ ' ~ • -~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i ~ ~ ' ' _ ~ ~ / ~ / ~iM11~ A~~. ~ ~ ~ /,- •iE j I ~/ % { - ~ .~ w..- j~~~, •~a~ ~ 4 S 88-07 ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ 418 Industrial St. l ~ ~` ~~` •~'~ + I '~. i •• 1 / _ - .. i/ \ ~ - -- - , ~r ~~.~ •- ~~ .~• ~ ~ :1 `~` L ~~ ~. ROBERT D. CARLSON 7O0 SPRINGFIELD DRIVE • CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA Y600~-OY /2 7-26-88 ~ ~~~~~~ MR. ARTHUR A. KEE, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY of CAMPBELL `~U~" ~ G j~8~ 70 NORTH FIRST STREET CITY OF CAMPBELL CAMPBELL., CA 95008 Pl-ANNINQ DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: M-88-15, 430 DARRYL DRIVE MR. REE: THIS LETTER IS SUBMITTED IN OPPOSITION TO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL DF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STATE DEPARTMENT of MOTOR VEHICLES OFFICE AT 430 DARRYL DRIVE. AS A RESIDENT FOR 12 YEARS IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA ( 763 SPRING- FIELD DRIVE ), I HAVE TO CONFRONT THE ALREADY CONGESTED INTERSECTION OF HAMILTON AVENUE AND DARRYL DRIVE ON A DAILY BASIS. SINCE THE OPENING OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE ON THIS SAME CORNER A FEW YEARS AGO, VEHICULAR AND FOOT TRAFFIC HAS INCREASED MANYFOLD. THE LIMITED PARKING AVAILABLE AT THE SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICE FORCES VISITORS TO PARK ACROSS THE STREET IN THE "SHOPPING CENTER" PARKING AREAS AND WALK ACROSS --_ DARRYL DRIVE. I AM WITNESS TO NUMEROUS "CLOSE CALLS" OF DAMAGE AND/OR , INJURY TO PEOPLE AND AUTOMOBILES EXITING AND ENTERING THESE DRIVEWAYS ALL DAY LONG. PLEASE KNOW THAT THIS IS ONLY A FEW FEET FROM THE PROPOSED DMV SITE! '-~ ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS SITE IS A NEW 14 UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX DUE TO OPEN ANY DAY. THIS WILL ONLY ADD TO THE DAILY TO-AND-FRO TRAFFIC IN AN ALREADY DANGEROUSLY CONGESTED AREA. TO NOW ADD A STATE DMV OFFICE, WITH ALL OF THE NECESSARY PARKING AND DRIVER TESTING REQUIREMENTS, TO THIS VERY BUSY AREA WOULD NOT SEEM TO BE SOUND CITY PLANNING. I STRONGLY URGE THE CITY of CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THIS APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION ~~M-88-15 AT 430 DARRYL DRIVE, AND TO SEEK A SAFER, LESS CONGESTED LOCATION. RESPECTFULLY, ((L.~Lrr'{" ROBERT D. CARLSON 408-378-4192 .~/ Fanelli Consulting, Inc. Land Planning/Property Management 1175 Saratoga Ave., Suite 17 • San Jose, CA 95129 • (408) 996-8188 July 23, 1988 Dear Commissioner: ~fl ~ , ~ ~ ~ S~ JUC O cir ~ 6 1988 p YOFC LANN~NG D P R M$ NT L On Tues~?ay, July 26th, you will be conducting ~t:rlic hearing to consider the application of :~lr, ti~illia? 2ie4emonte for a modiiicatior. to an a.E,proved building usage to allow the establishn~er~t cT a DMV office or. Darryl Drive. On behalf of :~lr. ?i~der.~or,*_e, I have revi~~~ed the staff report and would like to provide some clarification and comment for you during your review of the proposal. The major issues as identified are parsing and *_raffic. Zn order to adc?ress t:tese concerns, cue nave :~~et with the City Manager and the Public Works anu ?lanni:zg Departments to define the problems anc mitigation lneasures, have had a traffic analysis ~~repared by Bartor:-Ascliman Associates, and consulted t~ith the DA1V as to their acceptance of the required mitigations. F?e believe that these combined efforts have resulted in a proposal which meets the concerns of the city and the nearby neighborhood. As reported by the staff, the original site plan toes show 66 parking spaces. However, during connt=uction of the builGin^y changes were made and the actu~l narking stall count is 71. This has been verified by the traffic consultants. Of these, 62 have bean leased to the DMV. According to your zoning ordinance the 8,000 sq. ft. leased by DMV would require only 36 parking spaces. Thc~ traffic analysis based on anticipated use shows peak hour use of 46 visiting veh!cles plus 15 employees making a total of 61 spaces needed. the ~~ehicles would include those coming in for inspect=ons and the motorcycles. From these two analyses, we peel that there is sufficient on-site parking fcr the DMV employees a~ well as visitors. Additionally, we are prepared to restripe the lot for compact spaces and are seeking off-site par!cing for the employees if necessary. 3ase~ cn this information, we believe that the proposed .'c^dition of Approval #2 is excessively restricti;~e. The conditi~~n should require city approval for any proposed use of the remainder of the building at the time such use may be proposed based on the acutual parking situation at the site. Additionally, since the study indicates that there is suffici:nt on-site parking for both employees and visitors, the Public Works requirement of designated on-site spaces seems more in keeping with the findings than the Planning Department requirement for 15 off- site spaces until such a need is demonstrated. Mr. Piedemonte has agreed to participat? in his share of the traffic mitigations at Carryl Dr. a::d Hamilton. The DMV, in recognition of the neighbor's concerns about the driver testing, has agreed that all instructors will be told to turn right only when leaving the facility. In addition, we will post signs at the e~:its to again remind the test personnel of the right tLrn only requirement. Sae re31'_ze that the DMV's proposed location within the Ci*v of Campbell is a sensitise issue. What would :~orrrally be an simple application for tenant i:rprovcme.~ts has been extended in an attempt to address and ans.'^r the concerns. We would r,ow like to mo~~e fcruard w=r.h the tenant improvements whic:~ were aX~proved by tre Buylding Department in February. If the Commission feels that additional off-site parking is :,'~~r3, this process can be carried on while the i*^prcvements are being made and prior to issuing a certificate of Occupancy. .•7e believe that through the combined efforts of the cit staff, the DMV and ourselves, we have addressed and found effective answers for the potential problems concerning this application. We are looking forward to reaching a mutually satisfactory decision with you c.n Tsesday. If you have any question, please call me. Thank you for taking time to review this letter. Very truly yours, Virginia L. Fanelli cc: City of Campbell William Piedemonte Andy Faber JUG 2 G 1988 -.' J`• CITY OF CpN1F,ri~LL PLANNING DEPARrenrw~~ RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: M 88-15 SITE ADDRESS: 430 DARRYL DR. APPLICANT: PIEDEMONTE, W. PC MTG: 7-26-88 1. With traffic mitigation measures required by the Public Works Department, the traffic generated from the DMV will not cause adverse affects on the street or intersections of the City. 2. With an agreement to provide 15 off-site parking spaces for employees, the 62 on-site parking spaces should be adequate for the customers of the DMV, and therefore will not adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The DMV use will be a convenience and serve the citizens of the City of Campbell. ,1"' ~ ~. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FILE 4~ M 88-15 SITE ADDRESS: 430 Darryl Dr. APPLICANT: Piedemonte, W. PC MTG DATE: 7-26-88 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 canopy structure 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. Remaining 7,200 sq.ft. of building shall not be leased until such use has been approved by the Planning Commission. A major consideration in determining the allowable uses will be the parking demand generated. 3. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 4. 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. 5. 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). 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. FIRE DEPARTMENT 17. Plans shall comply with any Uniform Building Code or Uniform Fire Code required. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FILE ~~ M 88-15 SITE ADDRESS: 430 Darryl Dr. - PAGE 2. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9. Prior to building occupancy, applicant to submit agreement for the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney, indicating the provision of 15 additional off-site parking spaces to be used by DMV employees. 10. Driving test to be directed towards Hamilton Ave. Test shall not be conducted on neighboring residential streets, including W. Latimer Ave., Gale Dr., and Springfield Dr. 11. Motorcycle skills test in parking lot to be conducted only 2 mornings a week. These parking spaces shall be made available for customer parking at all other times. 12. DMV employees to park in designated off-street spaces only, and not on the public streets. PLANNING COMMISSION 13. Approval subject to a six-month review of traffic and parking situations. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 13. Mitigate traffic impacts at Darryl Dr. and Hamilton Ave. by installing: A. signal heads for northbound rught turns and southbound left turns; B. controller modifications and communications; C. hardwire interconnect with San Tomas Expressway signal controller; D. new loop cuts in Darryl Dr. to detect traffic in the retriped approach lanes. 14. Restrip Darryl Dr. for a northbound right turn and southbound left turn lanes. 15. Provide 13 parking spaces on-site designated and reserved for employees. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 16. Plans are incomplete. Items below shall be shown on construction plans: A. Doors along one hour corridor shall be rated to maintain the one rating (Re 3304- 1985 UBC). B. Lighting fixtures in corridor to be rated or covered to maintain one hour protection; or C. Walls of corridor to extend to roof line. D. Exit lighting to be shown on plan. E. Construction plans to have energy certification. F. Handicap certification to be made on construction plans. G. Mechanical plan is required showing existing and new. H. Show mechanical on roof. -~-.- ~ ._ -. - o _~ -.-e _~ Y ~ .. ~ N _. A~~ T~ r HAMILTON AV. ~m TT ~+{, - - BPI-! r ~ §' RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: SA 88-32 SITE ADDRESS: 96 N. SAN TOMAS AQUINO RD. APPLICANT: D & J-HOBBY PC MTG: 7-26-88 1. The proposed use is of such a size and is so located in this shopping center that a larger sign is warranted. 2. The proposed sign design is consistent with the shape and size of other signs previously approved at this shopping center. 3. The proposed sign allows the identification of this business in a similar manner to the other major tenants in this shopping center. CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. Proposed cabinet border to be painted gold to match other cabinets in this shopping center. 2. Applicant to secure any necessary building and/or electrical permits. ~' - - - 1.. sx