Loading...
PC Min 07/12/1988PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES JULY 12, 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, Planner II Marty Woodworth, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Walker, Perrine - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 1988 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Olszewski and Dickson abstaining due to absence from the subject meeting). Commissioner Olszewski noted for the record that he had reviewed the minutes. 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. ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 88-04 Continued public hearing to consider the Groo, E. application of Mr. & 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 on this item, noting that Staff is recommending a continuance in order to provide additional time for the applicant to enter into an agreement with the neighboring property owner. -2- M/S: Kasolas, Perrine - That the public hearing on UP 88-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1988 to provide the applicant time to enter into an agreement with the adjacent property owner. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ZC 88-06 Continued public hearing to consider the PD 88-09 application of Maison Construction for a zone Maison Construction change from R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development) and approval of a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of 4 townhomes on property known as 175 Shelley Ave. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 12, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site & Architectural Review Committee. The applicant has made an effort to break up the buildings and modify the long, narrow driveway; and, the applicant will mitigate the removal of an unhealthy tree with three 36" box trees. Therefore, the Site Committee is recommending approval of the plans as presented. __. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S: Walker, Perrine - That the public hearing on ZC 88-06/PD 88-09 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Walker, Perrine - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution Nos. 2540 and 2541, including finding and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of July 12, 1988, recommending that the City Council approve ZC 88-06 and PD 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. Discussion Commissioner Dickson complimented the applicant for breaking up the long, narrow driveway; and noted that, although the density still is a little too intense, the applicant has tried to mitigate the effects. ~ ~ ~ -3- M 88-13 Public hearing to consider the application of Vagts, H. 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 12, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending a continuance so that further information can be received from the applicants. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee, and a continuance is being recommended by the Staff Report. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S: Dickson, Walker - That the public hearing on M 88-13 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ~ ~ PM 88-08 Public hearing to consider the appeal of Mr. McClelland, R. 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. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 12, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Planning Director denying the applicant's request for the relocation of an interior property line. Commissioner Olszewski asked for a brief review of lot sizes in the area. Mr. Woodworth indicated that the area is zoned for minimum lot sizes of 10,000 sq.ft., and there are lots this size in the area. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the policy for the area is minimum lot sizes of 10,000 sq.ft.; therefore, if the Commission recommends approval of this application, it would be suggesting a major change to the policy set forth in the General Plan. Commissioner Perrine asked if the existing rear lot could be developed. Mr. Woodworth stated that the rear lot could be developed because it is a legally created lot. There could be difficulties, however, with maintaining the setbacks. -4- Mr. Steve Arnold, Civil Engineer, stated that the rear parcel was created under the County's jurisdiction. The applicant is asking for a lot line adjustment so that two houses can be conveniently located on the sites. A letter of opposition from Richard and Kathryn Peterson was noted (on file). Mr. Richard McClelland, applicant, noted that he has explained his intentions to his neighbors and they are no longer opposing. Commissioner Dickson noted that the existing situation is non-conforming, and approving the adjustment would not change the situation. What policy would be changed? City Attorney Seligmann indicated that the Commission would have to find that the change is in accord with the General Plan, and this might be difficult. Options might be approval subject to conditions of a variance or a zone change. M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - That the public hearing on PM 88-08 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Tli cr»cci nn Commissioner Kasolas noted that the Planning Director has made a correct decision based on the zoning in the area; and, the community has a right to rely on the General Plan. A denial of this request would not preclude the applicant from submitting an application for a variance. Commissioner Dickson agreed with Commissioner Kasolas; and, reiterated that there are already two non-conforming lots and they are just asking for an adjustment. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he would feel more comfortable with denying this application at this point; that this appears to be a policy decision; that there has been heated debate in the community in the past to maintain the large lots; and, that should the applicant choose to apply for a variance, there would be a tremendous burden to overcome in proving a variance is needed. Commissioner Kasolas proposed that the Commission uphold the Planning Director's decision, thereby allowing the applicant the opportunity to appeal the Commission's decision and/or file for a variance. Commissioner Olszewski noted that he looked at the situation from a quality of life standpoint. The two lots are existing and under the 10,000 sq.ft. criteria. Developing the rear lot as it exists would provide a denser project, and adjusting the. rear lot size would make a better living situation. Commissioner Olszewski indicated his agreement with the direction presented of using the variance procedure. Commissioner Dickson noted that it would probably be an easier procedure if this request were denied, and the applicant applied for a variance if he so desires. A continuance takes away the option of appeal to the Council. Mr. Kee agreed that procedurally, a denial would be more clear cut; however, if this is not to be the case, then Staff would suggest that this item be continued to the same agenda as the variance. -5- Commissioner Walker expressed a concern that Parcel A be brought into conformance with setbacks. M/S: Kasolas, Olszewski - That the public hearing on PM 88-08 be re-opened. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Mr. McClelland stated that he is in agreement with a continuance in order that he might pursue the variance issue. He indicated that it is his intention to build a new home and garage for his residence on the front parcel. M/S: Stanton, Kasolas That the publin hearing on PM 88-08 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). V 88-06 Public hearing to consider the application of Leinwetter, P. 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. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 12, 1988, noting that the applicant is requesting a continuance at this time and Staff would concur with that request. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is of the opinion that significant revisions are necessary; therefore, a continuance is recommended Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. Mr. Ben Margherone, 1160 Arroyo Seco, asked that the issue be resolved this evening, that the variance be denied and no permit issued. Mr. Margherone stated that the applicant has several junk cars in the back yard, and the neighbors are concerned that an auto repair use may evolve. Commissioner Olszewski explained to the audience that there was a great deal of discussion at the Site Committee meeting about the location of the subject structure. One option might be for the applicant to build the structure next to his home so that there would not be a variance. What is being presently proposed is not acceptable to the City, and the Site Committee has recommended that the applicant be given the opportunity to present an acceptable plan. Mr. James Hurley expressed a concern with the number of vehicles; the structure being enclosed eventually; and, the possibility of the property being used for a business. Mr. Hurley indicated that enforcement of such problems would present problems in the future. -6- Mr. Derek Lentz, 1174 Arroyo Seco, suggested that the applicant be encouraged to talk with the neighbors regarding what might be acceptable. Mr. Gary Lord, 1150 Arroyo Seco, expressed concern with the potential noise; the possibility of a business; and the aesthetics of the structure. Mr. Lord noted that the structure is visible from every room of his home. Mr. Paul Leinwetter, applicant, stated that he collects cars; he currently has 8 vehicles; the vehicles are not junk; they have been on the property for almost 5 years, with no complaints thus far; he would like a shelter for the vehicles; the structure is free-standing without a foundation, and he was told by a retired contractor that permits were not necessary. Mr. Leinwetter continued that, after discussion with the Site Committee, he knows that it will take great effort and money to get a structure approved; he is willing to plant trees to screen the structure; he has no intentions of opening a business on his property; and, he would like to work with Staff to try to modify the structure to comply with regulations. Chairman Christ encouraged the applicant to meet with his neighbors to discuss the situation. Commissioner Kasolas asked that the following issues be addressed in the next Staff Report: the percentage of lot coverage, including the proposed addition, exclusive of access of long, narrow driveway; any policy with respect to the number of vehicles which can be parked on property not designated as driveway or parking; and, any possible affects on the environment from vehicles not being parked on a paved area. Commissioner Walker asked for information on the height of the structure. Commissioner Stanton asked if the applicant should be asked to remove the structure because it is obvious that it will have to be changed, and it is visually impacting the neighbors. Planning Director Kee noted that the applicant has the right to apply for a variance, which he has done. Additionally, the applicant has been notified that construction on the structure cannot continue without permits, and that if the structure is not approved by the Commission it must be removed. M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - That the public hearing on V 88-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ~ ~ ~ PD 88-10 Public hearing to consider the application of Ward, G. R. 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. -7- Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 12, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending a continuance. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was discussed by the Site~and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is also recommending a continuance with the concurrence of the applicant. 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 August 9, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). S 88-06 Public hearing to consider the application of Pool, Patio 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. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 12, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending a continuance. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was discussed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is also recommending a continuance with the concurrence of the applicant. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S: Walker, Perrine - That the public hearing on S 88-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ~ ~ PD 87-06 Continued public hearing to consider the Sparling, J. application of Mr. John Sparling for a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of an industrial/warehouse building on property known as 426 & 430 Sam Cava Lane in a PD (Planned Development/ Industrial) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reported that the applicant has requested a continuance to the meeting of October 11, 1988 in order to further work with the City in order to come up with an acceptable plan. Staff is in concurrence with this request. -8- Commissioner Kasolas asked that Staff and the applicant be aware of the ___ tremendous parking problem and enforcement problem in this area caused by uses being changed in the buildings at later dates. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he would like it known that the integrity of industrial/warehouse uses must be maintained on any application coming forward for industrial/warehousing use. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S: Walker, Perrine - That the public hearing on PD 87-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 11, 1988, at the applicant's request. ~ ~ MISCELLANEOUS SA 88-27 Signing request - Pool, Patio & Things, Inc. Pool, Patio - 525 E. Hamilton Ave. - C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Planner II Woodworth noted that this item is related to Item 4l8 on tonight's agenda, which is the application of Pool, Patio & Things to occupy the rear portion of the Breuner's building. Because that item is recommended for ----- continuance, Staff recommends that this item be continued also in order to keep the two items together. M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That SA 88-27 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). * ~ ~ The Commission recessed at 8:50 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. ~ * ~ UP 88-07 Public hearing to consider the application of Home Church 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. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 12, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending approval of a use permit to allow church-related activities at the subject location for a period of two years. Commissioner Dickson asked what is required for approval of a use permit, and the necessary zoning for church uses. -9- Planning Director Kee indicated that a use permit requires a finding of compatibility, and a church use is allowable in any zoning district with approval of a use permit. Commissioner Kasolas asked if an economic analysis has been provided which addresses the loss of revenue or the affects on the existing businesses which rely on mutual support to retain their viability. He expressed concern that previous experiences have indicated that uses approved as "temporary" eventually become permanent; and, that the proposed use appears to be a serious conflict in how it addresses itself to the existing commercial in this center. Mr. Kee referred to the memorandum from the Redevelopment Director which summarizes that "a temporary expansion of church uses would not hinder the objectives of the Redevelopment Agency in revitalizing the current center with a retail/commercial emphasis. A permanent and expanding church operation at this location could foreclose the City's and Agency's flexibility regarding the redevelopment of this property noting that Staff is of the opinion that it's recommendation for a two year approval is not in conflict with the Redevelopment Agency's statement. Commissioner Olszewski questioned the Redevelopment Director's statement regarding flexibility, and asked if there were any comments why the term "permanent" was mentioned. Would a two year permit foreclose on the City's and Agency's flexibility? Mr. Kee responded that in Staff's opinion, the two year approval would not foreclose any options for the City or Agency, in that any study or plans on this center could take at least two years for completion. City Attorney Seligmann commented that there would be some restraint on the Redevelopment Agency; however, as indicated in the memo, it would be very unlikely that something will be done during that two year period. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was discussed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee; and, based on the architecture and site layout, the Committee is recommending approval per Staff's recommendation with an additional condition that 7 parking spaces be added to the final plans. The applicant is in concurrence with the added condition. Additionally, condition 12 in the Staff Report has been eliminated, per the Fire Department. Commissioner Stanton asked what the situation would be, as far as uses, should the church eventually become the major tenant in this center. Mr. Kee indicated that the church would require use permit approval for expansion beyond what is currently existing; and, being the owner of the entire center would not assure the use of the center for church purposes. The decisions regarding the allowed uses would remain with the Planning Commission and the City Council. Commissioner Walker noted that the only progress which seems to have occurred in upgrading the center has been that done by the church. It would appear that this center would definitely benefit under one ownership. -10- Commissioner Kasolas asked for a review of the surrounding uses, the vacancy rates; and how this use will improve the quality of life in this area. Mr. Kee reported that the surrounding uses are offices, restaurants, churches, and residential. Although Staff cannot quantify the issue of how this use will improve the quality of life in this area, Staff does not see an incompatibility of the requested use and the existing uses. The expansion of the church use into the center is a different issue, however, and this was referred to the Redevelopment Agency. Again, Staff does not think it's recommendation is inconsistent with the Redevelopment Director's response. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak on this item. Mr. Warren Jacobsen, Architect, 17120 Wild Way, Los Gatos, briefly reported on the history of this development, noting that in 1981 the Home Church was granted a use permit to occupy the old market in the Campbell Center. In 1986, another use permit was approved to allow an 8,000 sq.ft. addition in the front of the current church sanctuary; however, this plan was never built because of easement problems. The current request is for a use permit to occupy two empty stores to the south of the sanctuary. These stores have been vacant for sometime, and the church is purchasing the property. The presented plans provide for interior modifications only, with updated landscaping in the parking area in front of these parcels. Pastor Mike Kiley, 6415 Bevil Ct., San Jose, submitted an addendum to a previous petition in support of the proposed use (on file). Mr. Kiley explained that the subject space would be used for a youth center to accommodate approximately 100 young people. The use does not expand the adult membership and, therefore, does not increase a need for parking. Responding to questions from the Commission, Mr. Kiley indicated that the facility will be used primarily on Sundays for ministering to the youth membership, and occasionally on Friday nights for some other type of event. Because the area currently occupied by the barber shop is not immediately available, the working plans would call for a phasing of the modifications with the kitchen area being opened for activities that require such facilities - perhaps wedding receptions for those married in the church. Commissioner Kasolas noted that he was of the understanding that this application was for seven items as indicated in the Staff Report, including the barber shop. If this use permit were approved as presented this evening, removal of the barber shop would constitute a violation of the use permit; therefore, if the barber shop is not to remain, perhaps the plans should be corrected and this item continued. Commissioner Kasolas added that he was getting the feeling that the church is planning to maintain this use for longer than two years. Mr. Kiley thought that the situation had been clear - that the work would move ahead initially on the space, and that the remainder be completed when the barber vacated. Mr. Woodworth noted that Staff based it's recommendation on the plans before the Commission this evening, and Staff is not aware of any proposed phasing as indicated by Mr. Kiley. -11- Mr. Jacobsen explained that the original thought has been that the barber shop would remain until such time as it can be relocated to another space, then the __ vacated space would be opened up to inclusion with the youth center. The requested use permit is for the entire square footage, including the existing barber shop. Chairman Christ noted that the applicant wishes to apply for a building permit for the whole area, not including the barber shop because of non-availability. Once the barber shop area is available, the second "phase" of the interior work will take place. It would appear that the "phasing" issue is one of a building permit situation. Commissioner Stanton asked how many wedding receptions would be held. Mr. Kiley indicated that there might be a couple dozen a year. There is not intent to sublet the hall, and the church would agree to such a condition. Mr. Adam Alb, 1757 S. Winchester Blvd., owner of the subject barber shop, opposed to the application, noting conflicts between the merchant's association and the church over issues of parking; the flea market use; the Christmas tree lot; and, the sale of beer & wine, cigarettes, etc. Mr. Alb continued that the merchant's association has been improving the parking lot over the past few years with the help of income from the flea market; that the association holds the center together with little support from the property owners; and, that it is essential that this use permit not be granted. Mr. Alb expressed a concern that the church will take over the shopping center and drive the merchants out. Mrs. Carol Castiel Wilson, 454 Queens Ct., Campbell, spoke in favor of the application, noting that the goal of the church is to provide a better quality of life for the residents; there is no church in the City which brings revenue to the City; morals and better life-styles would seem more important that more shops and restaurants; and, empty shops and flea markets have not enhanced the area. Mr. Walt Landers, Lead Penny Silkscreening, 1769 S. Winchester Blvd., opposed the application, noting that the merchants are not opposed to the church in any way; however, there are serious conflicts between the merchants and the church on the issues of parking lot usage; and, the flea market at this location. Mr. Landers continued that the merchants view the property acquisition of the church as additional power over them; that the merchants feel victimized by the church; and, that the church members patronize only one of the shops in the center which is indicative of how incompatible the church use is with the commercial uses. Mr. Landers concluded that the merchants are seeking protection of the commercial uses in the shopping center. Mr. Paul Medeiros, 1409 Maria Way, San Jose, representing West Side Development Co. who own several parcels within the center, stated that the company feels that the uses are not compatible and that the planned uses will further inundate the parking area. Mr. Medeiros further stated that West Side Development feels that an environmental impact report should be done to identify lost revenues; to address the issue of parking during conflicting hours; how the use, if permitted, could affect future redevelopment; and, how the use would be in direct conflict of City Council stated goals. West Side Development also feels that just because there may be future plans for -12- redevelopment, it is not okay to grant the use permit; and, that the use permit _ would have a detrimental affect on it's property and tenants. Therefore, West Side Development requests denial, noting that approval of the subject permit would not generate economic development for the area and that the purchasing of the property lends an air of permanence to the situation. Commissioner Kasolas asked Staff if an EIR would be appropriate for a use permit; and, if so, could such an EIR be focused. He also asked Mr. Medeiros if he is aware of conflicts between tenants and the church. Mr. Kee noted. that Staff prepared a Categorical Exemption on this application, indicating that an environmental impact report was not needed; however, the Commission can overrule that opinion. Mr. Medeiros responded that the concerns he has heard from tenants is one of parking. It would appear that the growth of the church makes the issue a constant battle. Mr. Larry.Bringhurst, 725 Inwood Dr., Campbell, spoke in favor of the requested use permit; gave some background on the center, noting that his father had owned a toy store in the center several years ago. Mr. Bringhurst continued that commercial uses do not seem to grow at this location. If the center was successful, it would not be labeled for redevelopment. Mr. David Hantusch, 1674 Duvall, San Jose, indicated that he is a seller at the flea market and expressed his concern that the merchants will be forced out by __... the domino affect of the church. Mr. Hantusch noted that he believes that the church does not want to share the parking, but would rather take it away; and, he would like to see the church support the flea market because it provides revenue. Mr. Doug Dobbs talked about the spirit of God and the simplicity of the Bible, and indicated that consideration should be given to individuals who need to earn a living by selling their wares. Mr. James Wheeler supported the proposed use, noting that the church teaches solid values essential to developing strong youth with maximum potential and positive attitudes. Mr. Kiley addressed some of the issues brought up by speakers: the property was vacant for some time although it was posted for lease; the church has a bookstore which sells approximately $100,000 worth of merchandise yearly, and City taxes are paid on this revenue; the church cooperates with the merchants on the flea market and related parking matters, and was under the impression that these disputes had been settled; and, the church has never asked other owners to stop selling items. Mr. Kiley continued that the church leases one store (formerly a dance studio) from West Side Development for aerobic classes and church use on Sundays and, although they were unaware that they might need a use permit for this particular area, they would be happy to apply for a permit. Mr. Kiley presented a note from the Assistant Owner/Manager of Kentucky Fried Chicken in favor of this application (on file). Mr. Kiley --- stated that the church is very willing to work with the City on a joint commercial/public facility use and is very willing to assist with redevelopment of the center. -13- Commissioner Kasolas asked what percentage of property frontage was occupied by the church at this time, including the leased dance studio and the two subject store areas. The issue of incompatibility of neighbors may have merit in this instance - at what juncture would one neighbor be restricted by another in the expansion of activities Commissioner Kasolas noted that there appears to be a lack of information on this matter, and perhaps a better decision could be made with the provision of an EIR. Commissioner Kasolas indicated that he had thought the barber shop would remain; that he would like information on the "serving area" and what that means - will it be competing with commercial activities; and, that he felt this use was an absolute conflict. Commissioner Walker noted that the property owners in this area have not been mentioned during discussion; and, that he personally feels that the shopping center is not aesthetically pleasing and negatively affects property values in the area. Commissioner Walker felt that the two factions could come together, and proposed that the church use be conditioned to provide designated parking for the other uses, with the parking directly in front of the church to be mostly exclusive for church use. Commissioner Olszewski recalled past pictures taken of the parking lot, noting that he did not think a parking agreement would work. Mr. Landers indicated that past attempts to have reserved parking have been unsuccessful; and, that the church has noway of determining the success of any particular event. Although the merchants don't need all the parking, they would like to have some. Mr. James Arjone, owner of the liquor store, stated that the churchmembers take all the parking up front, next to the stores. The church had been asked to mark off the front rows of parking, and they did this for a while until they apparently tired of monitoring the situation. Mr. Arjone noted that the restaurant is having difficulties because of lack of parking; and, the more area the church obtains, the .more trouble the merchants are going to have. Mr. Kiley stated that he though the problems had been resolved; however, the church would be happy to rediscuss the parking arrangements. He noted that the center hosts an antique car club every Thursday night, and the church does not schedule events on this evening in the spirit of cooperation. Additionally, the church has parking arrangements with other properties in the area should a need arise. Chairman Christ stated that there is obviously a parking problem created by the church. The testimony given leads to signs of permanence of the proposed use, as well as conflicting statements regarding compatibility. Could the church actually be causing part of the deterioration of the center, or are they providing business for the commercial uses? Commissioner Kasolas shared the same concerns, commenting that the present church use is under a use permit and if the parking lot is absolutely full and members are using parking designated for other churches and banks in the neighborhood, where is the church putting all the people. He expressed a concerns with occupancy loads of the building and a possible strain on -14- emergency personnel, noting that perhaps the original use permit should be __ reviewed. Commissioner Kasolas supported a submittal of an EIR, and hoped that such a document would include the church's present operation because it appears that the existing use is part of the overall situation. He asked if the church is using 50~ of the center, which would make a significant difference. Commissioner Dickson noted that the church and the flea market share the parking and that the use of the church is sporadic - not continuous. There might only be a parking problem one or two days a week, but it's being made to sound like a 24-hour a day operation. All shopping centers in Campbell are experiencing problems and there are other shopping centers that are not up to par. Perhaps there is to much commercial in Campbell. When the church moved into the center, there was a marked difference in the landscaping and the church really improved the appearance of the center. He expressed a concern with putting restrictions on churches. Commissioner Dickson noted his shock that the church was not allowed to become member of the merchant's association, thereby cutting off communications. The dilemma is a successful church causing problem with a shopping center that was having problems prior to the church's coming in. Commissioner Olszewski stated that he felt that an EIR was overkill; however, there was some need for an economic study. Commissioner Walker questioned whether the Commission's role relates to income into the City coffers, noting that a breakdown of contributions from this center would probably indicate minimal revenues; therefore, this issue would - not seem significant. Chairman Christ commented that he has only heard the two sides agree that there is a parking problem. If this particular use is so successful that it's caused a compatibility problem, is there some way the situation can be alleviated? Additionally, Commissioner Christ felt that the idea of permanence has yet to be addressed; and, that the Commission does not have all the information needed. Commissioner Kasolas asked how this proposal would address the issue of revitalizing the commercial uses in the City. Mr. Kiley stated that, in reference to the suggestion that the church sanctuary may be overcrowded, the Fire Department regularly inspects the premises for code compliance. Parking is only a problem in Sundays and this is not going to be alleviated. Again, the church is willing to work towards a solution to parking problem with the merchants. It is, and always has been, the church's intention to stay in Campbell; but, the church is willing to negotiate with the City and willing to consider a move in the future. The church is in a position to cooperate and has indicated this many times. The current problem is needing room for a very important use. Commissioner Walker noted that if preparation of an EIR takes a long time, perhaps it would be better to consider the matters before the Commission this evening with Staff's conditions, in order to help the small retail uses with their parking now. -15- Commissioner Olszewski commented that the "cone" method of reserving parking for the merchants appears to have been a failure. He continued that it seems that if there is to be a solution, there needs to be a better attitude on the church's part. The statements made about morality conflict with the parking problems. A permanent solution is needed - perhaps concrete curbings and plantings and signage and literature to church members. Mr. Kiley indicated that they could use ushers, and were willing to cooperate; however, they were under the impression that these needs had been addressed. Commissioner Perrine stated that he would like to see a focused EIR on on-parking and the recommendations on how this might work. M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the Planning Commission find that there is evidence indicating significant environmental impact on (1) on-site parking and circulation; (2) compatibility of uses; and (3) fiscal impact in a C-2 (General Commercial) neighborhood; and, that a Focused Environmental Impact Report be required to address these issues. Discussion on motion Commissioner Olszewski supported the motion, noting that he would also like the see the history of economic activity for this center and projections for the future; as well as ideas perceived by the Redevelopment Agency or consultants. It would be helpful to show how viable the current center is, in that it could be that the center is no longer a viable place, or is a viable place, to conduct commercial business. Chairman Christ supported the motion, expressing concern that the compatibility of the uses be addressed. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Dickson, Christ NOES: Commissioners: Walker ABSENT: Commissioners: None. M/S: Kasolas, Perrine - That the public hearing on UP 88-07 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1988, pending further information from an Environmental Impact Report. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Chairman Christ requested clarification of the last paragraph of the Redevelopment Agency Director's memorandum, and asked if this statement was the opinion of the Agency, or just the Director. Commissioner Kasolas asked that the record reflect that he thought the memo from the Redevelopment Director was extremely well thought out. * * ~ -16- The Commission recessed at 11:45 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 12:05 a.m. Commissioner Stanton left the Chambers at this time. ~ ~ ~ S 88-07 Public hearing to consider the application of Varrelmann, R. 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 12, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending a continuance. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site & Architectural Review Committee, and a continuance is being recommended. It was brought up at the Site Committee meeting that properties to the north of this development are without sidewalks, even though they are fairly new; however, Public Works is requiring this development to install sidewalks. It is the opinion of the Committee that the requirement for a sidewalk should be deleted, leaving the additional room for parking and landscaping to blend in with the other adjacent developments. Engineering Manager Helms indicated that Staff would research the file to ascertain why sidewalks were not required on the developments to the north. For several years, the policy was not to install sidewalks in industrial areas; however, that policy was changed by the Council in 1983. Based on the existing policy, Staff has recommended the installation of a sidewalk for the subject development. The intent would be that all the properties in the area would eventually have minimal 5' sidewalks. The installation of sidewalks could be accomplished on the adjacent properties with a minimal amount of landscaping being removed. Commissioner Dickson suggested a condition providing for installation of sidewalks at the time the rest of the properties install theirs. Commissioner Kasolas opposed this suggestion, noting that if the policy is for sidewalks, the sidewalks should be provided at the time of development to avoid monitoring the situation or the requirements of bonding; and, there is no reason to deviate from the stated policy, especially with children loading and unloading across the street. Additionally, it is not known what situation exists on the adjacent properties with reference to performance bonds or policy at the time of development. Commissioner Walker noted that the area has very light traffic, with little pedestrian use; however, he would like to have further information. He commented that he would like to see this development match the rest of the street for aesthetics; however, a sidewalk does provide a measure of safety for the school children using this street for access to St. Lucy's school. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak on this item. -17- Mr. Robert Varrelmann, applicant, noted that the. plans have be drawn to provide for a sidewalk and for ample landscaping. If the sidewalk is not constructed, this project would better match the rest of the street and provide a little more landscaping. M/S: Perrine, Kasolas That the public hearing on S 88-07 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1, Commissioner Stanton being absent). M/S: Dickson, Kasolas That the Planning Commission implement the City Council policy requiring sidewalks in industrial areas. Motion carried 4-2-1. * ~ ~ 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. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 12, 1988, noting that the applicant has submitted revised plans and is requesting a continuance to August 9, 1988. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak on this item. M/S: Perrine, Dickson - That the public hearing on PD 88-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). ~ ~ ~ MISCELLANEOUS SA 88-05 Continued signing request - 499 E. Hamilton Baja Saloon Ave. - Baja Saloon - C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of July 12, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending a denial of this application. Mr. Dennis Fridinger, Manager, Baja Saloon, requested clarification of the issue and indicated that he thought he had resolved the problem by reducing the. size of the sign to 56 sq.ft. Mr. Woodworth explained that the issue is the design of the sign, not only the size; and, revised plans must be submitted. -18- Chairman Christ noted that he would not be too concerned if the sign were over sized by 6 sq.ft., if it's on the building. He suggested that the issue could be handled at Staff level if the Commission gives them the authority to approve 56 sq.ft. M/S: Walker, Perrine That the Planning Commission deny SA 88-05 based on the findings indicated in the Staff Report of July 12, 1988. Motion carried with a vote of 5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Stanton being absent, and Commissioner Kasolas abstaining due to possible conflict of interest. * * ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS GP 88-03 Continued public hearing to consider a City-initiated City-initiated General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element modifying the planned extension of Capri Dr. from Hacienda Ave. to W. Sunnyoaks Ave. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the public hearing on GP 88-03 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1988, due to the lateness of the hour. Motion carried 4-2-1. ~ ~ ~ MISCELLANEOUS Request Continued request of Mrs. Rosa Guerra - Guerra, R. satellite dish antenna - 1009 Virginia Ave. M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That this request be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1988 due to the lateness of the hour. Motion carried 4-2-1. ~ * ~ SA 88-23 Continued signing request - Campbell Travel Best Awning Service - 389 E. Campbell Ave. - PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That SA 88-23 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1988 due to the lateness of the hour. Motion carried 4-2-1. ~ ~ -19- Staff Report Continued Staff Report regarding Crockett Avenue Area Study. M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1988 due to the lateness of the hour. Motion carried 4-2-1. ~ ~ ~ Staff Report Staff Report regarding Planning Commission consideration of cancelling meeting of August 23, 1988. M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1988 due to the lateness of the hour. Motion carried 4-2-1. ~ ~ ~ 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 M/S: Kasolas, Dickson That the meeting be adjourned due to the lateness of the hour. Motion carried with a vote of 4-2-1. The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. APPROVED: Ronald W. Christ Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: SA 88-05 SITE ADDRESS: 499 E. HAMILTON AVE. APPLICANT: BAJA SALOON PC MTG: 5-10-88 1. In order to approve a sign in excess of 50 sq. ft., Section 21.53.140 of the Campbell Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission determine that the use for which the sign is to be erected would not be adequately identified or is unusually difficult to locate in comparison to similar uses or that the use is of such size and is so located in reference to surrounding uses and/or traffic circulation systems that a larger sign would best serve the public welfare and would be in keeping with the principles and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has not submitted any information to substantiate any of the above required determinations. Conversely, the use is located at a highly visible location at the corner of E. Hamilton Ave. and Almarida Dr., one block from the freeway. An existing 37 sq.ft., double faced, freestanding sign provides good identification coming either direction on Hamilton Ave. A 50 sq.ft. wall sign is allowed by Code and would provide further adequate identification. The Baia is easier to locate than similar night clubs uses such as those located in Water Tower Plaza in downtown Campbell and those in the Pruneyard such as the "Fizz". The Baia is not any more difficult to locate than other restaurants in the area such as Cocos, Carrows, or Golden West. 2. Section 21.53.090 of the Campbell Municipal Code requires all permanent __ signs to be designed so as to be architecturally compatible with an suitable for the buildings and structures with which they are associated as well as the surrounding area. The plywood construction of the Baia sign, without trim, appears "cheap" and does not blend well with the spanish motif of the building. It does not blend well with the professionally designed signs in the surrounding area.