The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Min 04/26/1988PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES APRIL 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: 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 Commissioner Kasolas stated that the correct wording for the motion on page 13, under Staff Report, is as follows: "It is requested that a communications be sent under the name of the Chairman Ron Christ to each of the members of the City Council, tomorrow morning, April 13, 1988, giving the Council the opportunity to indicate whether the role of the Planning Commission is to be of an initiator and not that of being reactive. Further, the Planning Commission has an obligation to initiated the process of fact gathering including utilization of public hearings in those areas and matters that .may lead to recommendations for consideration by the City Council." Commissioner Perrine stated that he had notified the Chairman that he would be late to the meeting of April 12 because of his arrival time from an out of town business trip. He requested that this be added to the minutes after the arrival time of 7:45 indicated after his name in the roll call. Chairman Christ stated that he had appeared at the City Council meeting and got the impression that the Council was confused and not informed or the minutes were not reflective of what concerns were. He hoped that the Commission could make every effort to clarify it's concerns, and to improve communications with the Council. Commissioner Kasolas stated that, in his opinion, the Planning Commission plays a very important role in giving the community an opportunity to come forth. M/S: Kasolas, Walker That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1988, be approved as corrected by the above discussion. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -2- COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Christ noted the communication regarding "Earth Day" from West Valley College; as well as several other communications pertaining 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. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS R 87-07 Continued request for reinstatement of S 85-14 previously approved plans allowing con- Johnson, R. struction of a retail building on property known as 915 & 921 S. San Tomas Aquino Rd. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of April 26, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending a continuance of this item to May 10, 1988. Revised plans have been received and are being reviewed by Staff at this time. M/S: Kasolas, Perrine - That R 87-07/S 85-14 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ~ ~ ~ M 88-09 Application of Mr. John Camarena for Camarena, J. approval of a modification to allow the construction of a mansard roof design on an existing drive-in restaurant located on property known as 2255 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending continuance to June 28, 1988 with the concurrence of the application. The applicant will be submitting plans to blend the building into neighborhood better. M/S: Perrine, Walker - That M 88-09 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ~ ~ ~ -3- PUBLIC HEARINGS S 88-01 Continued public hearing to consider Regency Monarch the application of Regency Monarch for approval of a site and architectural application to allow the conversion of an existing health spa to an office building on property known as 577 Salmar Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of April 26, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending denial without pre3udice to remove this item from the agenda. This recommendation is in concurrence with the applicant. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak on this item. M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the public hearing on S 88-02 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Stanton, Perrine - That the Planning Commission find that the City Council has adopted an Interim Zoning District for this area which essentially places a freeze on new construction or reconstruction until March 1, 1989, unless a Conditional Use Permit is granted. In that this application is not a Conditional Use Permit application, that the Planning Commission hereby denies S 88-01 without prejudice in order to remove this application from the agenda; and, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council refund the application fee or apply the paid fee to a Use Permit application fee, if the applicant wishes to pursue a Conditional Use Permit for this pro3ect. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ~ ~ ~ V 88-04 Public hearing to consider the applica- Chike, J. tion of Mr. Joseph Chike for approval of a variance to a required sideyard setback from 5 feet to 2.5 feet to allow the construction of a residential addition joining an existing residence and a detached garage on property known as 419 Esther Ave. in an R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. -4- Planner Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of April 26, 1988, noting that _ Staff is recommending approval of this variance request, and is of the i opinion that this situation is not common and it would constitute a hardship to relocate the garage. Discussion ensued regarding whether the original construction of the garage went through the permit process; why the existing setback was 2.5 feet instead of 3 feet; how large the subject lot is; the footprint of the house, garage, and addition; the age of the house; and how close the adjacent house is to the north. Mr. Woodworth indicated that the original garage construction did go through the permit process; the lot is approximately 7,000 sq.ft.; the footprint of the building with addition will be less than 407.; and the adjacent home is approximately 10 feet away, with a driveway between the structure. This application has been routed to the Fire Department, and they have indicated no concerns. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak on this item. Mr. Joseph Chike, 419 Esther Ave., noted that the house is about 40 years old and the garage is between 7-10 years old. He has recently purchased the home and has no knowledge of whether permits were obtained on the garage. Mr. Chike presented a letter (attached hereto) from the adjacent property owner indicating their support of his proposal. ____ M/S: Olszewski, Walker - That the public hearing on V 88-04 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt. Resolution No. 2527, including findings and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of April 26, 1988, approving V 88-04. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker, Dickson, Christ NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. V 88-05 Public hearing to consider the applica- Summit Construction tion of Summit Construction Co. for a variance to the 5 foot sideyard setback requirement to allow an addition to a single family house with the existing garage remaining with a 3 foot sideyard --- setback on property known as 677 N. Central Ave. in an R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. -5- Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of April 26, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending approval of the requested variance, in that this situation is not common and it would constitute a hardship to relocate the garage 2 feet. Discussion ensued regarding number of covered parking spaces; and, lot coverage. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. Mr. Rich Taggert, Summit Construction Co., noted that there would be two covered parking spaces available in the garage. M/S: Kasolas, Olszewski - That the public hearing on V 88-05 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Stanton, Perrine - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2529, including findings and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of April 26, 1988, approving V 88-05. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski, Walker, Dickson, Christ NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. * ~ ~ S 88-03 Public hearing to~consider the applica- McReynolds, W. L. tion of W. L. McReynolds for approval of plans to allow the construction of a small office on property known as 175 Cristich Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of April 26, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending a continuance to May 24, 1988, in order that the applicant might address concerns expressed therein. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is also recommending a continuance, with the applicant's concurrence. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the public hearing on S 88-03 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0>. ~~~ -6- ZC 88-02 Continued public hearing to consider PD 88-05 the application of NADCON Development NADCON Development for a zone 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 10 townhomes on property known as 490 & 496 W. Sunnyoaks Ave. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of April 26, 1988, noting that Staff is recommending approval of this zone change and Planned Development Permit. Commissioner Kasolas noted that he was of the understanding that the issue of density in and of itself was something we could not disqualify a project as long as it was within the allowed density. City Attorney Seligmann responded that current state law provides that if you are going to deny a project which meets the density requirement you have to adopt a finding that the project density would be a detriment to the health and safety of the surrounding neighborhood and that there is no way to mitigate that development at that density unless developed at a lower density. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he wanted to make sure when he reviewed this application that he was not reviewing in terms of density. He did not recall the issue of density being that strong at the last meeting. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval. Commissioner Walker asked about the property situated in the center of the u-shaped site. Mr. Kee indicated that the property in the center is shown for the same density (low-medium). It is Staff's understanding that the applicant is requesting a decision on this application and layout. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that he is acquiring the center lot and will be coming back, perhaps, to modify this proposal. The center lot is not under consideration this evening. The applicant was encouraged by Staff and the Site Committee to acquire the center lot to add to the total development. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. M/S: Kasolas, Olszewski - That the public hearing on ZC 88-02/ PD 88-05 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolutions recommending approval of ZC 88-02/PD 88-05. -7- Discussion Commissioner Dickson opposed the motion, noting that the requested zone change to Planned Development should be for a more outstanding project, not an increase in density. He continued that under the R-M-S zoning, only 11 units would be possible; and, he did not think a increase in density is the proper use of the PD zoning. Additionally, the project has long narrow driveways, with a driveway almost completely detached from the units which may present a maintenance problem; no common open space; and, nothing unusual in the provision of amenities. Commissioner Kasolas asked how long the driveway was on one side. Planner Woodworth indicated the driveway length to be approximately 150 feet. Commisiioner Kasolas stated that he would also be opposing the motion. Commissioner Walker opposed the motion because of the shape of the lot and the lack of open space. Chairman Christ opposed the motion, noting that the layout of the units does not provide for the development of the center R-1 property; and, if plans are going to be presented for the center piece, these plans should be designed to help the center piece of property. Roll call vote AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Motion for approval fails. Discussion Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski Kasolas, Walker, Dickson, Christ None Commissioner Kasolas stated that he voted on the merits of the project as presented - narrow driveway, lack of open space, etc. The issue is not whether another piece of property is bought. The matter should be voted on as presented. Commissioner Olszewski noted that the project density has been reduced from 11 units to 10 units; the length of the driveway under discussion is because of needed access for the Santa Clara Valley Water District to the perculation ponds, with no alternative for the developer; the applicant chose to provide more private space per units rather than common open space; and, in his opinion, the architectural design is one of the more interesting designs in this area. Commissioner Dickson called for a point of order, noting that the vote has been taken on the item; and, the only discussion at this point should be whether to reopen the public hearing or a motion for denial. Commissioner Dickson asked for what reasons the public hearing should be reopened. -8- Chairman Christ indicated that it was his understanding that the applicant could have the opportunity to submit additional plans because of the provision of additional property. Commissioner Dickson felt that this was out of order. Commissioner Perrine stated that his intent was to give the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project. M/S: Kasolas, Perrine - That the public hearing on ZC 88-02/ PD 88-05 be reopened, and that this item be continued for any revised plans that the applicant may chose that he determines will meet with the approval of the Planning Commission. AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski NOES: Commissioners: Walker, Dickson, Christ ABSENT: Commissioners: None. M/S: Perrine, Walker - .That the public hearing on ZC 88-02/ PD 88-OS be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 1988. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ~ ~ ~ GP 88-01 Public hearing to consider the applica- Horton, J. tion of J. Michael Horton, on behalf of City-initiated Edwin J. Myers Assoc., for approval of an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan from "Low Density Residential" to "Low-Medium Density residential" for properties known as 289 & 291 Redding Rd. in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District; and including in this application, a City initiated request to include the following properties in the proposed amendment: 1509, 1512 and 1521 Parsons Ave., and 299, 309, 325, 335, & 353 Redding Rd. APN 414-33-6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 414-34-18, 19. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of April 26, 1988, noting that Staff has provided two possible alternatives for the Commission's consideration. Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this item. Mr. Michal Horton, architect with Myers Associates, noted that there are two negative aspects of the proposed change - traffic and lack of privacy for R-1 neighborhood. The traffic appears to be a problem caused by commuters cutting through the neighborhood. The privacy issue can be -9- addressed by design of units, including landscaping, setbacks, sound walls, etc; and, that townhomes are generally quiet, with activities limited by the CC&R's. He spoke in favor of approval of Exhibit B, allowing parcels on the corner of Parsons & Redding Rd. to remain Low Density Residential. Mrs. Diane Fowler, 1454 Parsons Ave., spoke against the proposed amendment. Mrs. Fowler noted the amount of traffic, speeds, and narrow width of Redding Rd. causing traffic hazards; and, expressed concern about the higher densities encroaching into the single family neighborhoods. She indicated that if this amendment was approved, Exhibit B, allowing parcels on corner to remain R-1, would be preferable as far as protecting the R-1 neighborhood on Parsons and Fairbanks. Mr. Tom Robertson, 299 Redding Rd., spoke in favor of the proposed amendment, with no opinion as to whether Exhibit A or Exhibit B would be preferably. Mr. Robertson also expressed concern with the traffic on Redding Rd., noting that commute hours are particularly heavy. Engineering Manager Helms noted that the intersections involved in the commute traffic are under the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose. The City council has asked San Jose to look into the situation to see if restricting turn movements can be supported. Mr. Eric Boyd, 914 N. Central Ave. (owner of property at 353 Redding Rd.) noted that the street has been widened to accommodate parking; area has been rezoned a couple times since annexation; he is not interested at this point in being a buffer for the rest of the neighborhood; and, his understanding is that the rezoning would bring this area into conformance with the rest of the neighborhood. Commissioner Kasolas asked about the setbacks if this area is zoned as proposed; and, asked for further information about the buffer zone with R-1 zoning. Mr. Woodworth indicated that setbacks would be one-half the height of the building wall, or a minimum of 5 feet. Greater setbacks could be required with a Planned Development zoning, if so desired. Planning Director Kee noted that from a planning perspective, like uses across from like uses is a better kind of planning situation. Everything else along Redding Rd. is low-medium density. These subject properties are not currently low-medium density because they back up to single family lots. Mr. Horton noted that there appeared to be no one in the audience from Fairbanks Ave., the properties directly behind the subject properties. These residents would be the most directly affected. Mr. Horton felt that townhomes are much quieter than most other types of developments. Chairman Christ noted that a petition was presented at the last meeting, and that this is part of the record. M/S: Walker, Olszewski - That"the public hearing on GP 88-01 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -10- Commissioner Walker expressed a concern about an additional buffer, and asked about setting up an overlay zone on those properties simply doubling the setbacks. This would serve as a reminder to future Commissions, and protect the rear yards of the single family properties on Fairbanks Ave. in that these lots are not very deep. City Attorney Seligman stated that this would be a modification to the present zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission could recommend this to the City Council when the zoning issue comes about. Commissioner Dickson noted that a natural buffer currently exists with the street. He expressed his concern with discussion of putting in a new buffer by putting higher density right next to the low density. Additionally, Commissioner Dickson felt that low density in Campbell is becoming premium and should be looked after; and that the issues of traffic and privacy are very important. M/S: Perrine, Walker - That the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution, including findings indicated in the Staff Report of April 12, 1988, recommending that the City Council approve GP 88-01, Exhibit B. Discussion on motion Commissioner Dickson opposed the motion for reasons stated in earlier --- discussion. He commented that it was a positive move, however, to be considering the entire area, not just one or two parcels. Commissioner Kasolas opposed the motion, stating that he did not think Exhibit B made sense. If one is in favor of higher density it should be Exhibit A; however, the issue is the age old problem of addressing higher density against low density R-1. Commissioner Walker noted that he would look to future zoning applications to make sure that additional space (setbacks) are provided between this area and the adjacent R-1 area. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it was important to maintain various forms of housing alternatives. Commissioner Olszewski supported the motion, noting that there is nothing that says the higher density will encroach. on the single family pocket. He indicated that he was not sure that the need to maintain low density housing is more important than providing housing in total. Single family housing is nearly unaffordable to most people and as such, he felt that most communities will be faced with an increased need to provide housing; and, with that in mind, we need to look at areas that are best suited to provide that housing without compromising quality. Commissioner Kasolas asked the width of the street, and if any street -- improvements or dedications would be required of the corner properties to align street should the area develop at low-medium density. -11- Mr. Helms indicated that the City's standard street width is 40 feet from curb to curb; however, Staff is unfamiliar with the current street alignment at this location. Chairman Christ opposed the motion, noting similar concerns as Commissioner Dickson. He noted that there is nothing wrong with large lots, and people usually buy them because they want them; there is already an existing buffer of the street; and the lots on the south side of the street appear to be twice as deep as those to the north. Roll call vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Perrine, Olszewski, Walker NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Dickson, Christ ABSENT: Commissioners: None Motion for approval of Exhibit B fails. M/S: Stanton, Dickson - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2528, with the findings as indicated in the Staff Report of April 121, 1988, and the additional finding that the "south side of Redding Rd. offers a natural buffer for planning situations", recommending that the City Council deny GP 88-01. Discussion on motion Commissioner Olszewski indicated that the findings are inappropriate and inaccurate. Increased density increasing traffic is really misapplied in that it has been testified that traffic is a problem from commuters. The second finding in the Staff Report referring to loss of privacy is not plausible, in that single family neighborhoods are full of two-story homes. The third finding pertaining to health and safety is a blanket finding. Commissioner Olszewski continued that low-medium density could actually improve the area. Commissioner Walker opposed the motion, noting that he thought it better if low density did not face low-medium density. Leaving the area as it is will keep it from developing, forcing the single family residents of Redding Rd. to continue suffering as a buffer for the single family homes to the rear. Roll call vote on motion to deny. AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Dickson, Christ NOES: Commissioners: Perrine, Olszewski, Walker ABSENT: Commissioners: None. ~ ~ ~ -12- MISCELLANEOUS M 88-10 Application of Seal-Tate Construction Woerz, D. Co. for approval of an exception to the sideyard setback requirement to allow a second-story addition 5 feet from the right side property line for property known as 1671 La Pradera Dr. in an R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of April 12, 1988, noting that this matter is before the Commission this evening for approval of an exception to the setback requirement. Staff is recommending approval of this request in order that the applicant might utilize the existing bearing load wall for a second story addition. Chairman Christ noted communications from M. Duncan, the McAllister's, and Mr. James Reed, opposing this addition (copies attached hereto). Commissioner Olszewski reported that this. item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Commiteee is recommending approval with a condition that rear and side elevations be presented to the Planning Director for approval. These elevations would provide for an element that would break up the appearance of the structure from the side; thereby addressing a design concern. Mr. Woodworth reviewed the regulations for a single family zoning district pertaining to setbacks and height restrictions, noting that a second-story is allowed under the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission does have the authority to approve exception to setbacks requirements for second story additions, with the criteria for approval being that the exception will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Commissioner Kasolas noted that this situation pointed out a problem with the current policy, whereby if either ad3acent neighbor does not complain then the second story addition is approved; however, a complaint could result in the exception being denied. Commissioner Kasolas felt that letters from ad3acent property owners, indicating their approval, should not be solicited. Commissioner Dickson noted the correspondence from neighbors opposing the second story addition in this application, and noted. that the zoning ordinance has always allowed second stories in the R-1 districts. Mr. James Reed, 1762 Villarita Dr., noted that although this tract is an attractive residential area, the lots are too small to sustain second stories. Mr. Reed continued that he feels that the second story addition will harm the aesthetics of the neighborhood; provide for a larger unit, resulting in more people; detract from backyard privacy the quality of the neighborhood. Mr. Reed stated that there is a lot of dissention in the neighborhood on this issue which should be considered by the Commission. -13- Mr. William McAllister, 1750 Villarita Dr., opposed the second story addition, noting that the structure is very visible from his kitchen window, and appears to be a very high wall. Mr. McAllister noted that there is another second story in the tract, and it looks completely out of place. Commissioner Olszewski asked Staff how the City might do something to preserve single story neighborhoods as such. City Attorney Seligmann responded that the zoning code would have to be amended to limit the height of structures to one story. A particular zoning could be created for a particular area. Interested residents could petition the City Council to study such a change. Commissioner Olszewski felt that the speakers brought up a good point and, again, the. Commission is not in a good position. He wanted the speakers to know what could be done if they wish to change the zoning policies. M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt findings indicated in the Staff Report of April 26, 1988, and approve M 88-10 allowing an exception to the sideyard setback requirements to allow a second story addition 5 feet from the right side property line for property known as 1671 La Pradera Dr. Discussion on motion Commissioner Dickson opposed the motion, based on testimony given this evening, and noted that the Commission should look at harmonious development in the neighborhood. Commissioner Walker opposed the motion, noting that although the second story is allowable, the setback exception does not have to be approved and he would like to see the addition done according to the code. Commissioner Kasolas supported the motion. He further noted that the only criteria the Commission has ever used was that if the neighborhood supported the setback exception, the Commission approved the request; and, there is nothing that can be done except approve this request unless the policy is changed. Chairman Christ opposed the motion. Chairman Christ continued that he has never voted on an issue based on letters from the neighbors, but rather he always considers the affects of the solar light, the privacy, etc., and he did not see how this request could result in a situation which is harmonious to the neighborhood. Roll call vote AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski NOES: Commissioners: Walker, Dickson, Christ ABSENT: Commissioners: None. -14- Motion for approval carries. Chairman Christ noted the appeal procedure for the audience. ~ ~ ~ The Commissioner recessed at 9:50 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. ~ ~ ~ UP 87-15 Six-month review of previously approved Croes, M. Use Permit allowing the establishment of a large family day care center (7-12 children) on property known as 1550 Hack Ave. in an R-1-10 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of April 26, 1988, noting that it has been six months since Council's approval of this use permit. There has been one communication from the adjacent property owner, the Alford's, expressing. their concern with the noise generated from the day care. The Alford's are requesting that the number of children allowed at this facility be reduced to less than 6 (copy of letter attached hereto). Staff is recommending that this report be noted and filed. Commissioner Dickson asked if this matter should be reviewed by the City Council in that they were the decision-making body. Mr. Woodworth indicated that normally use permits are under the Planning Commission's authority; however, this matter could be referred to the City Council if the Commission so desired. The Commission may recall that it denied this use permit based on issues of noise, lack of parking, and loading/unloading problems. Additionally, several neighbors appeared to oppose the matter. Mrs. Manna Croes, 1550 Hack Ave., spoke at length regarding the operation of her large family day care home, noting that there have been no complaints except from the Alford's; the neighbors on the other side have submitted a letter (attached hereto) stating that, although they are very close to the play area, they are not bothered by any noise; that Mrs. Alford's dog barks frequently, and, she has been willing to work with the Alford's to make the situation more pleasant. Mrs. Croes requested that the conditions imposed by the Council (six-month review, and receiving complaints) be eliminated, and that any complaints received by investigated by Staff rather than a hearing scheduled without an investigation. Commissioner Kasolas asked Mrs. Croes what is the largest number of children she has had at her home on any one day in the past six months. -15- Mrs. Croes indicated that she has never had more than 12 children, including her own children. All the children are all-day care, there are no drop-ins; the hours are from 7 a.m. to approximately 5:30 p.m.; most of the children at 2-3 years old, with a few 5-6 month old babies; Mrs. Croes and her mother usually care for the children, with the assistance of one other girl - thereby usually having two people working, but sometimes three. Commissioner Kasolas understood that there were, then, sometimes two people working in the home that did not reside here. Mrs. Croes stated that this was correct. Mrs. Sybil Alford, 1536 Hack Ave., spoke at length objecting to allowing the large day care home at this location. Mrs. Alford noted that the subject house is a small two-bedroom unit with a converted garage; the noise was not as great with six children; although the children have been kept away from the Alford's side of the house, the noise is still excessive since this is really only about 28 feet away from the Alford's family room; including the helpers, the number of people at this location can be as many as 16; her dog barks because of the number of strangers in the area, and, the warmer weather will result in the children being outside more, thereby adding to the noise problem. Mrs. Alford continued that she had asked Mrs. Croes to limit the number of children to six; however, Mrs. Croes indicated that she could not make enough money caring for only six children. Mrs. Alford stated that she felt there was not suitable parking for this use, noting that two cars and the boat which belong to the applicant, the absence of a garage, and the parking spaces needed for the employees, thereby leaving only the driveway for loading/unloading children. Mrs. Alford noted that she contacted several of the neighbors regarding this situation, and they were in the audience earlier. but had to leave. These neighbors do not object to six children or less; however, they do object to the large day care home in that it is granted as a land use that goes with the property. Commissioner Kasolas asked if there is still a large hedge at the corner of Audrey and Hack Aves. causing traffic visibility problems. Mrs. Alford stated that this hedge still exists. Mrs. Alford stated that she had presented a petition during the first hearing on this matter. The neighbors on the other side of Mrs. Croes have changed their mind, noting in their letter referred to earlier that they have not been bothered by noise. Mrs. Alford noted that some of the signatures on Mrs. Croes petition in favor of the use live on the other side of Parr Ave.,. and have nothing to do with the issue. Commissioner Kasolas asked Mrs. Alford if she has seen 16 people at this site at any one time. Mrs. Alford responded that it is difficult to tell. At one time, she was able to count 9 children, ranging in age from four down. -16- Mrs. Susan Gorman, new owners on Hack Ave., stated that Mrs. Croes is - running a very nice day care but now that there are 12 children, the property has become more of a business than a home. ,Mrs. Gorman thought that if Mrs. Croes is running a business in a neighborhood, then it leaves the neighborhood open for anyone to do the same thing. She expressed a concern about changing the actual zoning in the area. Ms. Beverly Gardner, 1511 Hack Ave., stated that the day care facility does not affect her personally because she lives across the street, but she has the same concerns as Mrs. Gorman. Ms. Gardner noted that she was never approached by the applicant, as previously indicated. Commissioner Dickson commented that noise is a very relative thing, and it is difficult to say when someone is bothered or not bothered by something. Noise can be affected by the location, and can be channeled very easily. Commissioner Dickson stated that he is still concerned about the amount of square footage, and 2 bedrooms is not enough room for 12 children. A parking problems exists; there are barking dogs because of the number of strangers and disturbances in the neighborhood; the Alford's are retired people on a limited income and no place else to go and they deserve to have their concerns respected. M/S: Kasolas, Dickson - In that it is apparent that after six months, and after listening to both sides of the matter, that the issuance of this use permit has continued to create major concerns in this neighborhood which are: (1) the establishment of what may be a fairly substantial business, whereas up to three employees are working; up to 12 children, the majority of which are the age that go outside to spend fair amounts of time; (2) that the home is small, which may require more outside time due to the square footage; and, (3) the off-street parking, that the Planning Commission originally expressed concern about, may not have been alleviated; and, (4) it is hard to conceive how you can not have a noise problem if you have 10-12 children outside playing within 26 feet of the next door neighbor; therefore, it is recommended that the applicant be required to review the present operation in light of what has come out of this hearing this evening. It is recommended that the City Council seriously consider this use permit and any other that may come before it as now we have six month experience into one of the large day care homes. -17- Discussion on motion Commissioner Olszewski stated that he was unable to support the motion. He did not necessarily see the issue as a neighborhood problem, but rather a problem between two adjacent neighbors. Secondly, the State has appropriately pointed out that there is a need for day care centers. Unfortunately, that does infringe upon individual homeowners rights; however, in the larger picture, if we donut provide some kind of day care facilities such as these, we could end up creating an even worse situation for children (ie. "latch key" children). Commissioner Kasolas stated that he was not passing judgement on the use itself. The only issue he sees is that we are asked to review a use permit, and this provides the Commission which an opportunity to make some recommendations. Commissioner Olszewski stated that he sees inseparable relationships. Chairman Christ thought that the Commission needs to look at this in light of how this application came about. If an action had been taken at the Planning Commission level, issues of concern could have been addressed (ie. parking, etc.), but because the Commission chose to deny it, it went to the City Council and got approved without any conditions addressing parking, square footage, etc. Chairman Christ felt that this was a mistake on the Commission's part. One constructive thing that can be done at this point is to make recommendations and conditions addressing those issues. Commissioner Perrine stated that parking is a continued concern of his on this site, but apparently there have been no complaints about that topic. Commissioner Perrine continued that he would be voting against the motion, but would consider recommending that the Council examine this site in light of the ordinance on large family day care home thatis forthcoming at the Council level. Commissioner Walker expressed his concern about the traffic and asked that the applicant make the parents aware of the dangerous traffic situation pertaining to u-turns. Chairman Christ suggested that the motion could be simplified by stating that concerns and comments be forwarded to the City Council. Motion withdrawn The motion on the floor was withdrawn by Commissioners Kasolas and Dickson. M/S: Kasolas, Dickson - That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council review all of the testimony given this evening, both pro and con, concerning the review of UP 87-15. It is clear that residents of the neighborhood still have concern. -18- Discussion on motion Commissioner Olszewski asked if this motion sends this item back to the Council as an informational item, without asking the Council to revoke the use permit. Commissioner Kasolas responded that it is his understanding that all the Commission is being called upon to do is review the use permit and gather information; and, that all this information will be send on to the Council for whatever action they so choose. Roll call vote on motion. AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Walker, Christ ABSENT: Commissioners: None Motion to forward testimony from this evening's meeting to the City Council carries. ~ ~ ~ SA 88-11 Signing request - Expresso Limousine - Expresso Limousine 1645 S. Bascom Ave. - C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of April 26, 1988, noting that, as a result of the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting, Staff is recommending approval of a temporary sign for 60 days. This temporary sign is to be attached to the existing freestanding sign at the front of the site, and is subject to Staff approving its location. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval of a temporary sign as specified by Mr. Kee. Additionally, the Committee recommends that the a-frame sign be denied. M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt findings as indicated in the Staff Report of April 26, 1988, and determine that the a-frame sign at 1645 S. Bascom Ave. is in violation of City ordinance and must be removed; and, that approval of a temporary sign, for 60 days, to be attached to the existing free-standing sign with the location approved by the Planning Director, be granted under SA 88-11. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -19- Staff Report Review of topics and possible dates for Planning Commission Study Session. -- It was the consensus of the Commission that June 2, 1988 be scheduled for a Planning Commission Study Session; and, that topics as indicated in the Staff Report of April 26, 1988 be included in the agenda, as well as the issues of Overlay Zones and Square Footage Guidelines for Day Care Homes. * ~ ~ SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Subcommittee Reports Site & Architectural Review Procedure Subcommittee; Tree Preservation Committee; Site & Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Olszewski noted that a report from the Tree Preservation Subcommittee will be ready. soon. ~ * ~ OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSION Chairman Christ noted that the City Council has schedule a Study Session with the Commission for May 19, 1988. ~t*~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 p.m. APPROVED: Ronald W. Christ Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording SEcretary --- --- ,_ _ - r ---.- - ~ ~~.o~ d~~- ~i .,~'~ F~~,,.. ate- ~. c~la.°t~~ '~ "`rye pad' ~•,- `~ ~ ~a ~~ ~ ~~ ~3~ ~ST~+ C K~~~ ~~ y/n/~~~. .~-r+~ /Lo . 9 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: M 88-10 SITE ADDRESS: 1671 LA PRADERA DR APPLICANT: WOERZ, D. PC MTG: 4-26-88 1. The adjacent property owner has submitted a letter indicating that she has no objections to the addition. 2. The 5 foot setback will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 3. Because the house exists with a 5 foot sideyard setback, it would create a hardship to construct a second story addition that meets the setback requirements because new bearing walls on the first floor would be required. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: M 88-10 1. Obtain all necessary permits from the Building Department. 2. Applicant to submit elevations of the rear and side of the proposed . addition to the Planning Department for approval of the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. CITY OF CAN~PBELL 70 NORTH FIRST STREET CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 866-2100 Department: planning Mr. and Mrs. William McAllister 1750 Villarita Dr. Campbell, CA 95008 RE: M 88-10 - 1671 La Pradera Dr. Dear Mr. and Mrs. McAllister: April 14, 1988 ` ~~~,,(~;I~OM~~.~ L'U APR 251988 QITY QF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT The property owner at 1671 La Pradera Dr. has applied for an exception to the sideyard setback requirements to allow a second story addition 5 feet from the right side property line. The Planning Commission will consider this request at its meeting of Tuesday, April 26, 1988 at 7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 N. First St., Campbell, CA. If you have comments regarding this matter, you may attend the meeting or send your written comments to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Planning Department at 866-2140. Sincerely, ~~'. y~ ARTHUR A. KEE PLANNING DIRECTOR ld Cum ~oin.~z' ~l t/c ~~:li'~ ~ /6 ~~ ~~,~,~~ ~y°~~ d~~ ~?~~J/~~.~~~es /,'ao ~ ~, ~~~ 9. CITY OF CA1t~PBELL 70 NORTH FIRST STREET CAMPBELL. CALIFORNIA 85008 -- (408) 866-2100 Department: planning Mr. and Mrs. James N. Reed 1762 Villarita Dr. _ Campbell, CA 95008 RE: M 88-10 - 1671 La Pradera Dr. April 14, 1988 ~ ~~~fl ~~n APR 1 g X988 L~1 QITY OF CA eLANN1Wp M~j~~.~.' D~p,~ATMky1T Dear Mr. and Mrs. Reed: The property owner at 1671 La Pradera Dr. has applied for an exception to the sideyard setback requirements to allow a second story addition 5 feet from the right side property line. The Planning Commission will consider this request at its meeting of Tuesday, April 26, 1988 at 7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 N. First St., Campbell, CA. If you have comments regarding this matter, you may attend the meeting or send your written comments to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. If you have questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Planning Department at 866-2140. Sincerely, ~~ y~ ARTHUR A . KEE ~ '{ ~ ~ ` ! G, r ~ S ~ PLANNING DIRECTOR ~~ ld ~r ~ S~ ~~ r! ~ , ~~~~ c~~~ sl~~~~~~~~.~s c~~t ~~~u : ~~ ~~~ ~ ~,~cru~..L.~ ~~~~ ~. , '~'•: -_ „~- ~_ 1• ~ ``__ ~ . ~ f ~~ ~Z~`~ ~ _ 1988 A~~1%G~ ~~~/lam-f. r K. ~/CC~ ~//Y.~~i~~~~ i~ i ~ ~ A i •~" Li~7 `~a (/ i ~ .. ~~ . ~~~~ . -~ L v ~ ~ 4 L -- C~ i~L~n,~ Z l~ v ~G 7` ._- /~ ~~~u v~ M. /Jun~cf+iv 4r! ~ ~. ~~ .. e~~~ ~~ ~ ~-~ cue . ~~~ n~w~-t~ ~.P~ r~ c~ ~ov- ~-viz.G 2r~J~~.tca~~~A f ccefl~.cd /~~/ o1a.. ~a1~.do.~.~~ C[.cre- ~~~ ~~~~ud~~ p%t181988 CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~. ~ ~ >:.~~ i ':~ ~ ~:, o --f __ v ~ - - J~~p+, ~ ~ - n ~ -- _. 1 rh _- - ` - G -~-F~ . - I s / ~ ~ X49,:51 O • . i'q/~~~ 17/36 "~1j n ~L` ~m 1!8/06 • 1. 119/18 o ~ 0 - ~ ELEM _ Ilfr/1: CAI h ?, ~ S 1 1 3c~ zi 13 ~ - -_ ~ nor ~~ C AI 3~~10 1 1 O_ ~ ?3 IY 11 h 4r 1 .S 141/ 1 'S/?~ x Ala - -` ~~ -' ~s - ~ l w~nv.r; ~'' ~- m ~= + i • . y.. 0 1 I 'T O .- ILIA ~E _ /~ ~, ,z 99/9 f~N ` ~ ~ ~ 117/2 o ~ ~~~~ ~~ .~ ~~~ . ,. , 1 v ~ "~ .-L L-~ , i -' ~''1 G.~iYZJ~• ~~ ~7111J \ 1 pct: i +~-l ~ t~ /l.l~`L Cz 4./ I~-' ~~~'~~ ' •~ t_? LL' f%~~ r ^-7 / ~, ~.J. ~ "1 ~ / -~-~ / ~~ ,~~GfJ,/:.i ,'j c=t C:Er~ .~-~C= ~c-~-~:~~t~ ~-~--QJ /Z-k~j~C.--ZC.•L!~ ~~~ ..~~(- _4:.12-~-L ~C c.-tc.: ~ 1' C~~ ~ ~/ /. ~ ~, L•/Z t.v ~^'L~'t c- r `- "tea .. ~ ~..> >~:~ c :~ ~. ~~ ~~ :~ ~~,=' c, <'~ Y' - T- ~ ~ >2--.~.~~~ ~. l _C~.~ > ~G~-,-t. -)- -s- ~.Q G`~ t GYM!-2 ~ t - ~ / ~~ ~f`~, ,,,//'/ ~~! C` .~t .i C' `- ~ ~ ~ ~' `'/ 1 „ /; ~ / f ~{ / ~ ~ - L. - _ ~~ ~ ~- ~,. City Council City of Campbell 70 N. First St. Campbell, CA 95008 /,~ta flyer ~ tiE oct. i7, 1987 RC.(.~.~vC~ __._I OG~t 2 g 198! CITY CLERK'S OFFICE _ Dear Council Members : < <` _,_ ... _ ~ •~ r _L We refer to our recent case of "use permit for our large family day care", and our letter of 10/8/87 to Mr. & Mrs. Alford (copy attached). On the 16th of October, we discussed our plan of building a sound barrier on our joint fence (which they cla im is theirs :). Mr. Alford indicated that whatever we do should - be on our property. In spite of their unwillingness to co-operate and,although this project was just for their sake, we went ahead and made an acoustical barrier. Part of it was plywood panels affixed to our existing metal awning supports and part was free standing, going up 8', and of 2x4 and hardboard. Across the entire surface, we put sound deadening indoor/outdoor carpet. Again, this was at our own expense ($300.00), and at our own labor, in an effort to make the Alfords more comfortable with regards to children noise, which is already minimal, and it would have been far easier for us to do nothing. We send this letter to you for your information and to keep you apprised. in rely, j~~ ^ Ev & Mahn~~oe~` ~^ ~~ cc: Mr. Arthur A. Kee - Planning Director Oct. 8, 1987 Dear Cal and Sibyl, We like to, herewith, express our feelings and our concern towards your peace and comfort. We never had intention, in the past to be a problem to you or bother you and on the contrary, we always wanted and want, now more than ever, to be a good neighbor to you and do our best at all times. We always enjoyed having you as our next door neighbor and we definitely, like you have the same feeling towards us. We know, you are concerned about the noise of our day care children. We like to do more than what we did before, and anything else possible, to make it as quiet and as comfor- table as possible to you. We have a new idea we would like to discuss with you regarding a sound barrier that Ev would like to build, and would like to see what you think about it. Please, if you have any ideas and suggestions let us know. We like to do anything and everything which is within our ability and which is within the rules and regulations of State of California, Child Care Licensing Dept. Please do not hesitate to come to us at any time if we could be of help, since we are at home at all times. ' d regards, '~Ev and Mahna Croes ~ 1550 Hack Ave, Campbell, C a. 95008 cc: City of Campbell - Council Members ~ K. City Council City of Campbell ?0 No. tst. St. Campbell, Ca 95008 Ref: 1550 Aack. Ave. Everett Cross tJP 8?-15 Dear Members of the City Council: aR IkIN~!'i ~ We are writing in regards to the public hearing before you on April 5,1988 concerning the "Large Day Care Center" at 1550 Hack Ave. Since our last meeting before you October 6, 198? a contin- uance ras granted for six months. In October Everett approched Cal with an idea of a sound barrier, he said, to help curb the noise teom the center. Cal did not feel a aouad barrier in an open space way the answer and expressed so. Everett decided to build an eight foot high plywood wall, alongside the fence that aeperates our property. It was such a ghastly sight and did not serve the purpose it was intented tor. (Photo enclosed) We contacted the building Department, it eras not in compliance to the building code. It was lowered to six feet as the Cross wanted, we had no objections to this. Our patio is directly adjacent to the two small play areas, Mahna and Everett provide for the children. The children do aot use the entire backyard, thus causing the noise to reach a higher level. We have no objections to Mahna operating a "Small Day Care Center," thus allowing less noise, eo we may enjoy our home and yard as we had expected to when I retired. We appreciate your taking the time to read this letter of ours and perhaps gain a better insight into our problem with the noise Situation. V~~ rul~ urs~,~ ~ Cal and Sibyl Altord "~~ .~ March 28,.1988 1536 Hack Ave. Campbell, Ca 95008 RECEIVED MAR 2 9 1988 '~ /Zo. /O. Members of Planning City of Campbell 70 N. First St. Campbell, Ca. 95008 Commission Re: UP-87-15 Dear Members of Planning Commission: 4.25 , gg This letter serves to give you more information regarding our day care in regards to our six month review and the meeting on 26 April 1988. We hope you will have time to read this letter thoroughly before the meeting. On April 23, we received the staff report and the copy of PIr. and Mrs. Alford's letter. Please note the following facts in regards to Mr. & Mrs. Alford's concern: 1. The children play area in our back yard is 26' away from the fence shared by Mr. & Mrs. Alford with having a total of 3 fences in between. (please see the enclose d. drawing) The area which is adjacent to their patio has not been used for over a year now !: 2. During the last six months, due to the cold weather, children were inside most of the time. 3. The number of children playing outside was never more than 6 or 7. All about Z or 3 years old. 4. Our children are at all times supervised by an adult, and any .unnecessary and annoying noise, is dealt with promptly. .5. If there is any noise, its absolutely minimal, and reasonably standard,as allowed by State Law. 6. There is absolutely no basis for Mr. & Mrs. Alford's co.~plair.t about noise Even if they were out in their patio all day during these last 6 months, during which time everybody was mostly inside with windows and doors closed, due to the cold, the noise from our day care was nothing one could ccmplain about :: 7. Our children play area is adjacent to our other neighbor at the west side. If there was any annoying noise, which there was not, they are possibly the one who could be affected,and certainly not Mr. & Mrs. Alford, having 26' of space in between Whp has there been no complaint from our other neighbor (the one who works evenings and sleeps during --- day time :::) ? - 2 - 7. To comply with Licensing Dept. requirements, we had to fence in part of our back yard to keep the children seperate from part of the yard with pond, swimming pool etc. If we were to use entire back yard, there would be about 70' of area along the Alfords property line, where children could play. Not a very smart statement made by Mr. & Mrs. Alford regarding the use of entire backyard in their letter. 8. Please review our letter, dated Oct. 8th to Mr. & MTS. Alford, and our letter dated Oct. 22nd 1987 to the City Council. They are self explanatory. It appears that Alfords family tend to like to make untrue statments a lot :::: 9. Here we would like to mention that noise from Mr. & Pirs.Alfords has definitely bothered our family and our day care children. They have a dog that barks for a LONG TIME every day when the postal truck comes by, between 1 and 2 p.m. That disturbs the children while they are napping. The dog also barks at the UPS trucks, fire trucks (our cross street neighbor), garbage trucks and bottled water trucks and other louder vehicles. In a fe~a occasions, when they were on a trip, they lef: the dog outside and the dog barked all night::: There is also Mr. Alford's power leaf blower and a power saw used in making benches and planters etc. Both of which, make considerable unpleasant noise!! 10. Mr. & Mrs. Alford had a tragedy several years ago. Their son and his family died in an accident. One girl was left alive and she is living with them. What we heard from other neighbors is that ever since r!rs. Alford has become a very nervous woman. Mrs. Alford's problem is within herself and, we fee= is not our day care, noise etc. No matter WHAT WE D0, she is going to complain There has never been a solid reason for their complaint before, there is not any now, and we assure you there will not be any in future. 11. We are operating a very healthy, good and safe day care. We are helping families from our neighborhood and our community. We are doing something which is greatly needed in our today's society. This job is already very difficult and stressrul. The problems this Alfords family is giving us is just a hassle and harassment and makes our job more difficult for us. We really do not appreciate it. We kindly request the dear Members of Planning Commission to check. this matter thoroughly and make an end to this unnecessary harass- ment to us. A harassment made just by one family for not a single, solid good reason. Sincerely, Mahna and Everett C. Croes cc: Mr. A. Kee Planning Director a Q V N w V ~~ ... J ~" _~jj a ~ t 1 ~' --- ~ -~ ~-r----L- - - w .~ ~ -! N ;~• , ~ a, .t J dW ~ -~~ i ~4 ~~~ LL~ :, .~ ~ ~ ~' ~ `~ _ _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~I ~ r ~ 1 9 i~ ~ ' 1 ~ 1 1 a ~ ~ J ~ ~ Q • 1 ' o N •' , 'j I' 1 J r~ • ~ 1 `~ Y ~ 9 ~~~w~ C8S` •' a ..~ .Q. ~ •/ ~~ • ~ 1550 HACK AVE UP 87-15 • / y ~ , +~. _ - ~ ~Rt) ~ / `~ i __.E{: • .• • 1• / ~ w..~.• w. •~ i i e i v` • f f f ..... __ i ~ ~ ~. a ~~// RECOMMENDING FINDINGS FOR DENIAL: SA 88-11 APPLICANT: EXPRESSO LIMOUSINE SITE ADDRESS: 1645 S. BASCOM AVE. PC MTG: 4-26-88 1. The applicant has not provided any evidence to indicate that this sign is in compliance with City code. 2. The City wants permanent, well designed signs to enhance its appearance. 3. Movable signs tend to clutter the streetscape and often become obstacles to pedestrians and vehicles. 4. The placement of A-frame signs encourages other businesses to place signs without City approval. I N ~ m ~ N ___ --EAST- q HAMILTON -AVE: a •~ P. M. S27•M-7 ...~ ,;~ .. ~~ 1~ ~ ~ I O! ~ 1 G ~ A 1 v'~~w ~v_ :. ~ q ~~evvv _ ;Y ~r ~ IV 1'+ r ~ s O ~ r ~ i i (1111111111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ C ~1111111111111111~~ ` ~ 1 1 1 1 1 111 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111111111 11111111111111111• ~• S SA 88-11 •- ~ "O ~ _ • ~c:: r ~:...., , ~. .:.o o :...: erj hm t ., ~ ., - D . Mq N C ~w~i°. O 1U St ~ i' - ~~ i. i.i~ i ~'aw ~ v ,~ / NV • ~ ' .. hN ~ ~ _ 1.fo ~ .:w ~ c 1 J ''moww O ~~ vl ~ ~ n ~ / i/ + 44 3 ~ ~ : ~~ 1 .N x ~ ~ ~ ~ r x /• v ! / ~ , i ~ ~ ~ "° / ~, ~ i I ~~ f ~ ~ .. Ai1.oz.--... 1~ . I ... 1 ~.l0 • =~ oR s 1 ~ a ~ _ < ~~~ !~ I M v~J~9 m Z' o > 'M 0 ~` ~I i I ~~ _ 1 s w ' s r g ' 1 ~ + : g ~s~ I iC IIS s7 . ~ 0 ~ S. ~66/'J _ 4AMPIS11iMLr lAStOM ACCE:aI WAY -- ~, , A h • ~' N +C ~ N m --- / j . ~ o _ ~ ~~ ~ -O- o ~~ . o N~ l