PC Min 02/23/1988PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
7:30 P.M. MINUTES r~~BRUAR~Y `L3, 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, Christ; Principal Planner
Phil Stafford, Planner II Tim Haley,
Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney
Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda
Dennis.
Absent Commissioner Dickson, Planning Director Kee.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M/S: Perrine, Walker That the minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting of February 9, 1988 be approved as
submitted. Motion carried with a vote of
5-0-1-1, with Commissioner Walker abstaining
due to absence from the February 9 meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion ensued regarding the memorandum from the City Council regarding
recommendation on advisory commissions. It was the consensus of the Commission
that Staff poll the Commissioners for input to be forwarded to the City
Council.
Other communications pertained to specific agenda items.
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.
* ~
M 88-01 Public hearing to consider the application of
Aansell, R. Mr. Rod Hansell for approval of a
modification to a previously approved Planned
Development Permit to allow the construction
of a residential addition to an existing
structure located on property known as 1405
Harriet Ct. in a PD (Planned Development/Low
Density Residential, less than 4.5 units per
gross acre) Zoning District.
-2-
Princ~pal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 1988,
no'~ng that Staff is recommending a continuance to March 22, 1988, so that
revised plans may be submitted.
A letter .from Michael and Traci Adams, 1401 Harriet Ct., was entered into the
record (attached hereto).
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.
Mr. Michael Meek, 1403 Harriet Ct., opposed the modification because it would
cut off the sunlight for the ad3oining property, and because it was not
aesthetically pleasing.
Mr. Dan DiBenedetto, 1407 Harriet Ct., opposed the modification, noting that
the second story addition "shed" is directly opposite his windows.
M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the public hearing on M 88-01 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of March 22, 1988. Motion carried 6-0-1.
Commissioner Kasolas asked that consideration be given to the fact that this
development was constructed under the Planned Development Zoning District at a
fairly intense density; and, the issue may be how much can a Planned
Development be intensified.
~ ~ ~
M 88-02 Public hearing to consider the application of
Hillig, V. Ms. Vicki Lou Hillig for a modification to a
previously approved Use Permit (UP 86-14) to
allow an increase in seating, from 23 to 45
seats, without providing additional parking
or 3oining a parking district, for- a
restaurant on property known as 422 E.
Campbell Ave. in a PD (Planned
Development/Commercial) Zoning District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 1988,
noting that Staff is recommending denial of this request.
Chairman Christ noted that the applicant has presented a petition from patrons
of her business supporting the request for additional seating. (Petition on
file. )
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
-3-
Ms. Vicki Lou Hillig, applicant, noted thai: tihe ~'+_ncrease in seating is being
requested to adequately serve the community, acid that the petition contained
1407 signatures.
Discussion ensued regarding the previous conditional approval by the City
Council and the parking agreement which was not signed by the property owner;
the potential parking situation in the downtown area in reference to the
Redevelopment Plan; the legal ramifications of possibly approving this request
for a limited time period; and, the purview of the Commission in this
situation.
Mr. Kurt Anderson, 135D Redding Rd., Campbell, spoke in favor of the request
and suggested a six-month review.
M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the public hearing on M 88-02 be
closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1).
Discussion
Commissioner Olszewski felt that this should not be forwarded to the Council
with a negative conotation, and that the business itself should be supported.
Chairman Christ indicated that he could support a lesser increase in seating,
but not to 45 seats.
Commissioner Kasolas noted that the Council has determined a policy on this
issue, and the Commission does not have the authority to change that policy.
Commissioner Walker stated that he was in favor of the business, however, the
applicant really needed to seek a solution through the property owner.
Commissioner Olszewski indicated that, although Council does set policy, the
Commission can make recommendations; and, perhaps in this instance, a
recommendation for a six-month approval might be appropriate.
M/S: Kasolas, Perrine - That the Planning Commission adopt the
findings indicated in the Staff Report of
February 23, 1988, and adopt Resolution No.
2508 recommending denial of M 88-02. Motion
carried with the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski,
Walker, Christ
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Dickson.
Chairman Christ asked that the minutes on this item be forwarded to the
Council.
~ ~ ~
-4-
S 88-01 Public hearing to consider the application of
Regency Monarch Regency Monarch Development 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.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 1988,
noting that the applicant is requesting a continuance to March 8, 1988.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is also recommending
continuance.
Discussion ensued regarding the pending interim zone in this area and possible
affects on this project.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S: Walker, Perrine - That the public hearing on S 88-01 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of March 8, 1988. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
~ ~ ~
S 87-05 Public hearing to consider the application of
Paisley, M. Mr. Marty Paisley approval of plans and
elevations to allow the construction of an
industrial building on property known as 786
McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial)
Zoning District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 1988,
noting that Staff is recommending a continuance, with the applicant's
concurrence, to March 22, 1988.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is also recommending a
continuance.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S: Olszewski, Kasolas - That the public hearing on S 87-05 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of March 22, 1988. Motion carried
unanimously (6-0-1).
~ ~ ~
-5-
GP 87-10 Continued public hearing to consider the
Lippert S. application of Mr. Stephen Lippert for
an amendment to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan from Low-Medium Density
Residential (6-13 units per gross acre) to
Medium Density Residential (14-20 units per
gross acre) for property known as 464 W.
Campbell Ave. in a PD (Planned Development)
Zoning District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 19888,
noting that Staff is recommending a continuance, with the applicant's
concurrence, to March 8, 1988.
Commissioner Kasolas requested information on densities and uses for adjoining
properties.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S: Stanton, Walker - That the public hearing on GP 87-10 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of March 8, 1988. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
~ ~ ~
PD 87-15 Continued public hearing to consider the
Lippert S. application of Mr. Stephen Lippert for a
Planned Development Permit, plans,
elevations, and development schedule to allow
the construction of 42 apartment units on
property known as 436 to 464 W. Campbell
Avenue in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning
District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 19888,
noting that Staff is recommending a continuance, with the applicant's
concurrence, to March 8, 1988.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is also recommending a
continuance.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S: Stanton, Walker - That the public hearing on PD 87-15 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of March 8, 1988. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
~t~~
-6-
TS 87-03 Continued public hearing to consider a
Lands of Ern Tentative Subdivision Map to create 7 single _.
family lots of 9,000 sq.ft. or more in an
R-1-9 (Single Family Residential) Zoning
District - 1381 Harriet Ave. - APN 403-19-14
& 15.
Principal Planner Stafford noted that Staff is recommending a continuance of
this item to the meeting of March 8, 1988. At this time, Staff has received
the map, however, there has not been adequate time for review.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Mr. Kurt Anderson, architect, asked that the Commission proceed on this item,
noting that the Public Works Department has reviewed the map.
M/S: Perrine, Walker - That the public hearing on TS 87-03 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of March 8, 1988. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
~ * ~
S 87-10 Continued public hearing to consider the
Anderson, K. application of Mr. Kurt Anderson for approval
of plans to allow the construction of 7 -
single family homes on property known as
1381 Harriet Ave. in an R-1-9 (Single Family
Residential - 9,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size)
Zoning District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 1988,
noting that Staff is recommending a continuance in order that revised plans
might be submitted.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S: Olszewski, Perrine - That the public hearing on S 87-10 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of March 8, 1988. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
~ ~ ~
S 87-09 Continued public hearing to consider the
Anderson, K. application of Mr. Kurt Anderson for approval
of plans to allow the construction of an
office building on property known as 3803 &
3835 S. Bascom Ave. in a P-0 (Professional
Office) Zoning District, and the construction -~
of two single family homes on property known
as 1956 Whiteoaks Rd. in an R-1 (Single
Family Residential) Zoning District.
-7-
Planner II Haley reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 1988, noting that
Staff is recommending a continuance.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is also recommending a
continuance.
Commissioner Kasolas asked for a review of the landscaping buffer area for the
next meeting, noting that this could be a possible .trade-off for the
massiveness of the proposed building.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S: Walker, Stanton - That the public hearing on S 87-09 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of March 22, 1988. Motion carried
unanimously (6-0-1).
~ ~ ~
The Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
~ ~ ~
PD 88-02 Continued public hearing to consider the
Enfantino, G. application of Mr. Gene Enfantino for
approval of a Planned Development Permit,
plans, elevations, and development schedule
to allow the construction of 4 townhomes on
property known as 660 W. Parr Ave. in a PD
(Planned Development/Low-Medium Density
Residential, 6-13 units per gross acre)
Zoning District.
Planner II Haley reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 1988, noting that
Staff is recommending approval.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is also recommending approval,
with red-lining addressing colored textured concrete in center of project.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
M/S: Stanton, Walker - That the public hearing on PD 88-02 be
closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1).
M/S: Stanton, Perrine - That the Planning Commission accept the
Negative Declaration which has been prepared,
and adopt Resolution No. 2509, incorporating
findings and conditions of approval as
indicated in the Staff Report of February 23,
1988, recommending that the City Council
approve PD 88-02. Motion carried with the
following roll ~all~vote:
r
-8-
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
Kasolas, Stanton,
Walker, Christ
None
Dickson.
Perrine, Olszewski,
* ~ ~
ZC 87-15 Continued public hearing to consider the
PD 87-14 application of Ainsley Development, Inc. for
Ainsley Development a zone change. from R-1-6 (Single Family
Residential, 6,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size)
to PD (Planned Development); and, for a
Planned Development Permit, plans,
elevations, and development schedule to allow
construction of 9 single family homes on
property known as 921 & 931 Hazel Ave.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 1988,
noting that Staff is recommending a continuance in order to allow the Public
Works Department an opportunity to meet with the applicant to discuss
additional on-site parking, and to discuss other concerns as indicated in the
Staff Report.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Olszewski noted that the
applicant has requested that the matter be considered this evening. The Site
Committee is of the opinion that although the homes are well-designed, the lot
sizes are minimal in reference to the San Tomas Policy; therefore, the
Committee has no recommendation at this time.
The following correspondence was acknowledged and part a part of this record
(attached hereto): Bob & Karen Meyers, 1636 Ebbets Dr.; Thomas & Patricia
Ferguson, 910 Hazel Ave.; Carol L. Weiner, 587 Harriet Ave., Campbell.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Mr. Bill Kelly, 740 Craig Ave., requested the installation of an 8' fence,
windows to be moved to provide privacy to his lot, consideration of no street
lighting in area, preservation of three major evergreen trees, sidewalks on
Hazel & Hazelwood near the school, and a stop sign on the corner of Aazel and
Craig. Mr. Kelly expressed his appreciation to the developer for his
willingness to work with the neighborhood, and noted that the project appears
to be very nice.
Mr. John Decker, 752 Craig Ave., expressed concern with the increased traffic
in relation to the children's safety in going to and from school in the area.
Mr. Brock Hopkins, 941 Hazel Ave., expressed concern with the proposed
two-story structures going into a predominantly single-story neighborhood, and
the closeness of the structures to his property lines. Additionally, Mr.
Hopkins asked about sewer lines, street widening, and location of sidewalks.
-9-
Mr. Brian Bonhoff, 940 Hazel Ave., noted his agreement with the proposed
development, but expressed concerns with the traffic in the area, the apparent
inadequate on-site parking, and the safety of the children walking to school.
~- Mr. Bruce Bowen, applicant, expressed his willingness to work with the
neighbors to address their concerns. Mr. Bowen continued that he felt the
development was in line with the San Tomas Policy, noting that the average lot
size of 6,400 sq.ft.; that he plans to retain the largest trees on the site;
and, that extensive landscaping is also planned for the development.
Commissioner Perrine asked Mr. Bowen if he would be willing to do the
engineering and construction of the sidewalks for this block, if the other
property owners would agree and provide the materials necessary.
Mr. Bowen stated that he would be willing to do this.
Commissioner Kasolas was of the opinion that the issue of the San Tomas Policy
has been solved in that it appears that the neighborhood wants sidewalks and
standard improvements, and it is encouraging to see people supporting the
provision of good housing in the area. Commissioner Kasolas added that the
issue of inadequate parking in the area was a legitimate concern.
Mr. Bowen noted that it would be easy to provide another on-site parking space,
however, a tree would have to be removed; and, to provide additional parking
would make it difficult to maintain the utilization of the lots.
Engineering Manager Helms indicated that the Fublic Works Department, by
expressing a concern regarding the provided parking based on previous
experience, is only hoping to bring a potential problem to the Commission's
____
attention.
Discussion ensued regarding the San Tomas Policy and it's relationship to this
project; the neighborhood's apparent desire for sidewalks and street
improvements; the provision of additional on-site parking and the relationship
to lot utilization and maintaining existing trees; the apparent inadequacy of
parking in the neighborhood; providing for pedestrian safety on-site with a
private street; landscaping and its relationship to pedestrian safety on the
private street; and the use of CC6~R's to address concerns expressed by the
Commission and residents.
M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the public hearing on ZC 87-15/PD 87-14
be closed. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the Planning Commission accept the
Negative Declaration which has been prepared,
and adopt Resolution No. 2510, including
findings and conditions as indicated in the
Staff Report of February 23, 1988,
recommending that the City .Council approve ZC
87-15;
And, that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 2511, including the following
finding: that the project will contribute to
an increase in traffic t~,~ '-.~e neighborhood,
therefore, it is desirab~~ ~Lhat the developer
work with property owners on the north side
-10-
of Hazel Ave. between Virginia Ave. and Craig
Ave. to provide sidewalks; as well as other __
findings and conditions as indicated in the
Staff Report of February 23, 1988, and with.
the added conditions that (1) the
landscaping./fencing plan to come back to the
Planning Commission for approval; (2) the
developer to provide the engineering and
labor to provide sidewalk/curbs/gutters for
the length of Hazel Ave. on the north side
between Virginia and Craig Aves. if the
property owners desire to cooperate and
property owners agree to provide materials,
recommending that the City Council approve PD
87-14.
Discussion on motion
Commissioner Kasolas expressed a concern with the 8 foot fence height as
requested by an adjacent property owner.
Commissioner Olszewski expressed a concern about the issue of sidewalks, and
noted that this project will warrant close watching in terms of the San Tomas
Policy.
Commissioner Perrine stated that he would be voting in favor of the motion,
noting that the developer used a similar approach on Latimer Ave. which ---
maintained the character of the single family neighborhood excellently..
Vote on motion
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski,
Walker, Christ
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: 'Commissioners: Dickson.
Commissioner Kasolas requested that the Planning Commission agendize the San
Tomas Policy for review and/or validation, as a result of the testimony from
this neighborhood and the concerns expressed by residents in the
Crockeet/Westmont area. It appears that development may be the way to
alleviate traffic and to provide a better quality of life. Commissioner
Kasolas suggested that the matter be agendized in 4-6 weeks.
~ ~ ~
ZC 87-12 Continued public hearing to consider the
PD 87-11 application of Mr. Alex Kotylar for a Zone
Kotylar, A. Change from R-3-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 23 townhomes on
property known as 400 Union Ave.
-11-
Planner II Haley reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 1988.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The Site Committee is recommending approval
--- with revised plans to be approved by the Committee. Revisions to the previous
plans include modifications of units 2 & 18 to increase the distance between
the buildings to reduce the "canyon" affect.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Mr. Hutton, Monte Sereno, noted that the contractors will all be local, and
that the project will be high quality.
Commissioner Olszewski stated that he would support a condition limiting hours
of construction because of a concern expressed by an adjacent resident at a
previous meeting.
Mr. James Malone, 1021 Hedegard Ave., representing the Gardner Estate spoke in
favor of the project.
Chairman Christ asked the applicant to take into consideration the concerns of
the neighbors relating to noise, specifically early mornings, late evenings and
weekends; and, asked Staff to be alert to any complaints and to apprise the
Commission of those complaints for possible addressing in a noise ordinance at
a later date.
Commissioner Kasolas indicated that it was totally inappropriate to negotiate
with the applicant at this point; and, that too much noise can be handled as a
general nuisance through the Police Department.
Mr. Norman Ricks, contractor, stated that normal construction hours are from
7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the public hearing on ZC 87-12/PD 87-11
be closed. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
M/S: Walker, Perrine - That the Planning Commission accept the
Negative Declaration which has been prepared,
and adopt Resolution No. 2512, including
findings and conditions indicated in the
Staff Report of February 23, 1988,
recommending that the City Council approve ZC
87-12;
And, that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 2513, including findings and
conditions as indicated in the Staff Report
of February 23, 1988, recommending that the
City Council approve PD 87-11.
Motion carried with the following roll call
vote:
-12-
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski,
Walker, Christ __
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Dickson.
~ ~ ~
V 88-02 Continued public hearing to consider the
Hicks, J. application of Mr. Jim Hicks for a variance
to the front, side, and rear setbacks to
allow the construction of a single family
home on property known as 657 Regas Dr. in an
R-1-6 (Single Family Residential, 6000 sq.ft.
minimum lot size) Zoning District.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 1988,
noting that Staff is recommending a continuance of this item.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is also recommending a
continuance.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience
to speak on this item.
M/S: Stanton, Perrine - That the public hearing. on V 88-02 be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of March 8, 1988. Motion carried unanimously
(6-0-1).
~ ~ ~
V 88-03 Continued public hearing to consider the
Cliff, B. application of Mr. Bill Cliff for approval of
a variance to Sections 21.06.010 and
21.12.050 to allow three dwelling units on a
lot which has an area of approximately 8,575
square feet, in lieu of a 9,000 square feet
required in an R-M (Multiple Family
Residential) Zoning District. Property is
known as 65 Shelley Ave.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 1988,
noting that Staff is recommending denial of this variance request.
Commissioner Kasolas noted that he had requested a review of adjoining
properties in the area to determine whether or not the calculations for the
existing structures were to the center of the street or just to the property
line to show that this. property would be consistent with all the neighboring
projects now that the new rule has become effective.
Mr. Stafford indicated that Staff was not aware of the number of units built --',
using the calculations to the middle of the street to determine lot size. The
existing rule came about because some developers were using the PD Zoning to
circumvent the density issue.
-13-
Commissioner Kasolas thought that the existing developments could not prevail
under the new ordinance from a density standpoint.
Commissioner Olszewski asked if this was a legitimate cause for a variance.
City Attorney Seligmann responded that size. is one of the circumstances
specifically listed for analyzing hardship for a variance. The general rule is
that it can not be solely based on economics.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on this
item.
Mr. Bill Cliff, applicant, stated that his project is 4K over the zoning
regulations; he is not violating any setbacks or other code requirements; there
is no other lots in the City with the same square footage as the subject lot
that three units are being requested for.
M/S: Kasolas, Stanton -
M/S: Kasolas, Stanton -
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
That the public hearing on V 88-03 be
closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1).
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
No. 2514, including findings for approval
indicated in Staff Report of February 23,
1988, and approve V 88-03. Motion carried
with the following roll call vote:
Kasolas, Stanton,
Walker, Christ
Dickson.
~~t~
Perrine, Olszewski
Commissioner'Kasolas requested that the issue of PD Zoning be agendized for a
future meeting; specifically, the possibility of reverting back to the previous
method of calculation. Commissioner Kasolas continued that the Commission
should take a close look at what has happened this evening under V 88-03,
particularly at small in-fill lots. It might make a difference on a small
project .
Chairman Christ stated that a more proper forum would be a study session.
City Attorney Seligmann said it was up to the Chair, since we have no rules on
it.
Chairman Christ directed Staff to agendize the matter for a light agenda.
~ ~ ~
-14-
ZC 87-14 Continued public hearing to consider 'the
PD 87-13 application of MHS Design Group for a
MHS Design zone change from R-M-S (Multiple Family
Residential) to PD (Planned
Development); and, a Planned Development
Permit, plans, elevations, and
development schedule to allow the
construction of 3 townhomes on property
known as 65 Shelley Ave.
Planner II Haley reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 1988, noting
that Staff is recommending approval.
Commissioner Olszewski reported that this item was considered by the Site
and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending
approval as redlined.
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on
this item.
M/S: Kasolas, Stanton - That the public hearing on ZC 87-14/PD
87-13 be closed. Motion carried
unanimously (6-0-1).
M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 2515, including findings
as indicated in the Staff Report of
February 23, 1988, recommending that the
City Council approve ZC 87-14; and
That the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution No. 2516, including findings
and conditions as indicated in the Staff
_ Report of February 23, 1988,
• recommending that the City Council
approve PD 87-13. Motion carried with
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine, Olszewski,
Walker, Christ
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Dickson.
~*~t
R 87-07 Continued request for reinstatement of
S 85-14 previously approved plans allowing
Johnson, R. construction of a retail building on
property known as 915 & 921 S. San Tomas
Aquino Rd. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood
Commercial) Zoning District.
Principal Planner Stafford reported that the applicant, at this time, has
requested a continuance of this item to April 12, 1988.
-15-
M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That R 87-07/S 85014 be continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of April 14,
1988, at the applicant's request.
Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1).
~ ~ ~
TA 87-04 Continued public hearing to consider a
City-initiated City-initiated text amendment to
Sections 21.61.070 and 21.50.050 of the
Campbell Municipal Code establishing
standards and procedures for review of
Large Family Day Care Homes which
provide family day care facilities for
7-12 children, including children who
reside at the home, in residential
zoning district.
Planner II Haley reviewed the Staff Report of February 23, 1988.
City Attorney Seligmann stated that the revised procedure is, at best,
legally questionable. The Attorney for the League of California Cities
shares his opinion regarding the application being heard by the Planning
Commission rather than the Planning Director.
Commissioner Kasolas raised concerns regarding the surveyed cities and why
Saratoga was not included, the method by which parking spaces were
calculated, and if only primary owners within 100' can request public
hearings.
Planner II Haley indicated that all of the cities in the south bay area
were surveyed. However only those cities which responded at the time of
the Staff Report was prepared were included in the table. In regards to
parking, assuming a standard house has 4 spaces (2 garage, 2 tandem), only
one additionAl space is being requested.
Attorney Seligmann stated that any affected person can ask for a public
hearing regardless of whether they are within that 100' area originally
noticed or not.
Commissioner Kasolas indicatd that public notice should be given to
property owners within a minimum of 300' and there should be a notice
published like everything else. Just like any other application.
Chairman Christ also felt that notice to property owners should be 300',
not 100'.
Commissioner Walker concurred with Chairman Crist.
Attorney Seligmann stated that in that in his opinion, interpreting the
state law that the 100' is a minimum - you could require more notice than
that; however, there are conflicting opinions on that - please be aware.
-15-
Chairman Christ opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak on
this item.
Ms. Flo Furuike, 1799 S. Winchester Blvd., 41109, Campbell, Department of
Social Services, asked about 21.61.070B - we do not consider children who
live there in that ratio. Generally the 100' for noticing is considered
the minimum. Regarding parking - can't use the garage because you are
pulling over another space - requiring a lot more. Is that the same
requirement that you have for other businesses. We do require that there
be at least 2 care providers - 1 adult and other at least 14 years old.
Also question the decibel level. How do you determine what is
unreasonable. How realistic is it to limit noise of children. 2C is
limiting hours of operation within the purview of the local jurisdiction?
Concentration - how is that determined and by whom will it be
determined? Possible to have several small day care homes within that
300' radius and you may not know that because lists are confidential and
not available to planning commissions in general.
Commissioner Kasolas asked if Ms. Furuike was representing the State?
Ms. Furuike responded that she did not request permission to come,
however, part of her job is to provide information about day care
facilities. Aowever, would be here on behalf of the State of California
Department of Social Services.
Mrs. Sybil Alford, 1536 Hack Ave., asked question about decibels and how
they are evaluated.
Engineering Manager Helms explained that a typical conversation would be
in the range of 55 decibels. There are a number of studies available in
terms the layman can understand. I think our office has that kind of
information.
Planner II Haley ,indicated that it was the intent that 3 on-site spaces be
accessible tb the street rather than being a tandem situation.
Chairman Christ stated that he thought we are then asking people to pave
their front yards.
Planner II Haley responded that it is a dilemma: maintaining a
residential appearance/character for a business use. The Planning
Commission has authority to vary parking requirements for a particular use
at a specific location.
M/S: Perrine, Kasolas That the public hearing on TA 87-04 be
continued to March 22, 1988, for Staff
to revise 100' to 300' and make any
modifications as a result of California
Department of Social Services
representatives suggestions and the
Commission including of children over
12; wording on parking; over
concentration on large centers; etc.
Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1).
~ ~ ~
i ~ -
MISCELLANEOUS
Staff Report Staff report regarding continuances.
Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of February 23,,1988.
M/S: Stanton, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission adopt the
following policy regarding continuances:
"Generally", if a Planning Commission
agenda item is continued to a future
agenda, the continuance shall be for a
minimum period of thirty (30) days. The
Commission may elect to continue an item
to the next agenda (Z weeks) if the
applicant can clearly demonstrate that
all required information will be
submitted in order to meet agenda
deadlines."
Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1).
~ ~ ~
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned at 12:00 a.m.
APPROVED: Ronald W. Christ
Chairman
ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee
Secretary
RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis
Recording Secretary
,-
LF7 ;~~ ~ %' , ~~
February 18, 1988
Planning Commission
City of Campbell
'10 N. First St.
Campbell, Ca 95008
Dear Commission:
I am writing in response to the notice I received (M88-OI 1405 Harriet
Ct) regarding the application for building permit by Mr. Rod Hansell.
I wish to express my extreme disapproval and displeasure of the semi-
completed addition which has been constructed across the street from my
residence. It was built without any concern to the opinions of the
neighborhood. It was also built without any notice to the neighbors,
which I feel should have been done since it is in direct view of all
!»uses on our street.
I am not apposed to the construction of additions to a residence since
it usually will increase the value of the homes which surround it. I
did support the addition built on the house next to 1405 Harriet Ct., as
well as the first addition done by Mr. Hansell at 1405 (Even though it
does not appear to be what he stated it was going to be: "a storage
area"). However, this construction is different.
It ("IT" happens to be appropriate since I don't know what "IT" is supposed
to be) greatly distracts from the house to which it is attached to, as
well as the rest of the street.
It looks like a box, on top of a carport, attached to an addition, which
was built on the opposite of the garage from the rest of the house. (If
this sounds like a "run on" sentence, this house is starting to look
like a "run on house"). The next door neighbors to Mr. Hansell have
recently completed anextensive and attractive addition to their home. I
feel that it is unfortunate that such an expensive and truly first class
addition, which will undoubtably increase the value of everyone's home
on our court, can be flanked (almost within arm's reach) by a nonprofessional-
looking construction which will most likely decrease the value of everyones
home. I feel that there is a point when added construction starts to
become overbearing and decreases from the eye appeal of the neighborhood
(This is a residential area, not a downtown industrial area`. I feel
this point has been surpassed in this case. Much can be said about the
appeal of open space, landscaping, etc. That's why I chose to live
where I do. If I wanted a building next to a building,next_to a buildin'g., _ _
I would live in an apartment. ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~' ` ;:
~-- ~ _ ' --
Sincerely,
~~~~~~
Michael and Traci Adams
•.w~ ..__~s_ ~.
r" ~ ~. .
-~~
RECOMMENDED s~NDINGS: M 88-01
SITE ADDRESS: 1405 HARRIET CT.
APPLICANT: HAl~SELL, R.
P. C. MTG: 2-23-88
1. The proposed addition is shown with a driveway and a carport with a 15'
front yard setback rather than 25' as typically required.
2. The building design is not similar in appearance to the remainder of the
residence. The angle of the roof, the roof materials, and the shape of
the addition do not complement. the existing structure.
3. The proposed storage shed is shown on the property line with no setback.
4. The Architectural Advisor expresses a concern regarding the quality of the
addition's design.
~ ~~ ~.~-
lLo.i~.
Feb. 22, 1988
City of Campbell
Planning Commission
Campbell, Ca. 95008
Dear Sirs:
We are writing this letter in response to a notice we saw in
the paper regarding the developement of Hazel Avenue. We
would like to express our support for-this project. We feel
that it will enhance our community and add property value
to the surrounding communities.
As a matter of fact we are hoping to move to a new home in -- ----
the next year and new 4 bedroom homes are very difficult to
find in Campbell. We would be very unhappy to be forced-to
leave the community because of a lack of quality housing.
We urge you to approve the project on Hazel Avenue.
S(i~ncerely,
1~qD .
Bob and Raren Meyers,
1636 Ebbets Drive
Campbell, Ca. 95008
~r~r~~M~ ~ _.
FEB 2 3 1389
CITY OF CAMPQ~L!
PLANNINQ DEPARTMENT
,tC' ~ /~
~-~ X20 . /.2 .
February 23, 1968
Arthur Kee
City of Campbell
Planning Commission
70 North first Street
Campbell, California 93006
Re: ZC 87-iS/PD 87-14, 921 h 931 Hazel Ave
Dear Mr. Kee
This letter is !n response to revisions made in the Ainsley
Development project subsequent to the Feb. 9 Planning
Commission meeting.
My wife and I live at 910 Hazel Ave. which is across the
street from the project. We are pleased that Ainsley
Development wants to improve the parcel. We feel this will be
an improvement in our community. However, we have some
concerns relating to the project.
1. We have reviewed the revised plans. The set backs of
the homes have changed, but the total number of homes and
average lot sizes has not. Our original concern stated !n our
February 8, letter remains.
2. Hazel Avenue already receives a lot of traffic, we
are still concerned about increased traffic and safety. On•
of our neighbors mentioned the posibility of a stop sign on
Hazel Ave. at Craig.
.3. We are not advocates of public or private streets,
but adequate parking remains one of our concerns.
4. We appreciate the commissions interest in preserving
and protecting existing property owners from construction
damage, traffic control, pedestian safety', increased garbage,
dust, and noise.
Sin erely,
Thomas and Patricia Ferguson ~~~
I D
cr-r~r of car•~~e~~r.
PLANNING DEFARTN,ENT
i
Feb. 18, 1988
City of Campbell
Planning Commission
Campbell, Ca. 95008
To Whom It May Concern:
D ~~~~~~
.D
n
f C F ~., ~~
PLANNINd ~Ep%.':Th!=':-
I am writing this letter in regards to the proposed developement
of 921 & 931 Hazel Ave.
As a resident of Campbell I am thrilled to see this area being
upgraded with single family homes instead of condominiums or
apartments. This .kind of an upgrade to the neighborhood will
serve all area residents and owners with increased property
values and the addition of new families to our neighborhood.
I am urging you to approve the proposed developement.
Sincerely, ,
~~
Carol L. Weiner,
587 Harriet Ave.
Campbell, Ca. 95008