Loading...
PC Min 09/08/1987PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES SEPTEMBER 8, 1987 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session at the regular meeting place, the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners: Stanton, Olszewski, Christ, Walker, Dickson, Perrine; Planning Director A. A. Kee, Principal Planner Phil Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Kasolas. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Stanton, Christ - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 25, 1987, be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee noted that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. ORAL REQUESTS Chairman Perrine asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to address the Commission on an issu e that was not on the agenda. There being no one, the Chairman proceeded with the set agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZC 87-06 Public hearing to consider the applica- Shell Oil Company tion of Shell Oil Company for a Zone Williams, J. Change from C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) to C-2-S (General Commercial) on property known as 1530 W. Campbell Ave. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of September 8, 1987, noting that Staff is recommending a continuance of this item to October 13, 1987. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. -2- There was brief discussion regarding whether or not there is a Council policy on having similar businesses in close proximity, and regarding the zoning history of the subject site. M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That .the public hearing on ZC 87-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 1987. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). * f ZC 87-OS Continued public hearing to consider the PD 87-04 application of Mr. Rassoul Aleshi for a Aleshi, R, 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 two townhomes on property known as 548 W. Hacienda Ave. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of September 8, 1987, noting that revised plans have not been received; therefore, Staff is recommending a continuance to October 13, 1987. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the public hearing on ZG 87-05/ PD 87-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 1987. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). Request Continued request of Richard and Dorothy Aubrey, R. Aubrey for a deviation to the Satellite Dish Antenna Ordinance to allow a dish antenna 17'8' in height and partially visible from the street on property known as 1459 E. Campbell Ave. in an R-1-6 (Single Family Residential - 6,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of September 8, 1987. Correspondence from the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Aubrey, was noted (attached hereto). The Commission discussed the FCC regulations and how they pre-empt the local regulations; antenna regulations in the County in that the subject property borders the County; and, alternative placements for the subject antenna as they relate to creating a hardship. -3- City Attorney Seligmann indicated that the hardship would be, in his opinion, self-imposed in that the applicant placed the antenna prior to seeking approval; however, he would caution the Commission that there has been no court decision to support this opinion. Mr. Seligmann continued that he was of the opinion that the applicant could be required to move the antenna on the basis of costs. Mrs. Dorothy Aubrey reviewed her letter to the Commission (attached hereto) and presented pictures of the site. Mrs. Aubrey stated that, in her opinion, moving the antenna would interfer with it's reception, and could make it more visible in the neighborhood. Additionally, the applicant answered questions from the Commission regarding the height of surrounding vegetation, alternative locations for the antenna, and the size of the dish antenna. Mr. Mark Bara, 14 N. Peter Dr., presented pictures of the view from his home, and spoke against the application.. Mr. Bara noted that the item had been continued in order that the applicant might work out something with the neighbors, however, no attempt was made to do this; and, that the antenna has devalued his property and he has no recourse to recover costs. Mr. Bara suggested that an expert be consulted to determine the least conspicuous placement for the antenna. Mr. Gordon Armstrong, 13 N. Peter Dr., spoke against the application, noting that it brings down the neighborhood. Mr. Armstrong felt that there should be a-place to mount the antenna where it will not be visible to anyone. Regarding the applicant~sizefof theptreescyhowever,ehe/wouldAlmkerto seedthetproposaluld depend on the before making a decision. Mr. Patrick Bouchard, 1485 E. Campbell Ave., spoke against the antenna, stating that it is very unsightly, easily seen from the front and side, completely visible from his rear yard, and closer to the fence than the code allows. Mr. Bouchard presented pictures taken from his property; stated that he would still object to having to look at the antenna even if it were placed in the presented alternative location; and, that he felt victimized by the whole issue. Regarding putting trees between the houses, Mr. Bouchard did not think that this was an acceptable alternative and that it would take years to accomplish a screening effect. Mr. Richard Aubrey, applicant, stated that it is impossible to put the antenna low because reception will be interferred with by the Bouchard's house, and power lines. Mr. Aubrey continued that the City code states that the antenna cannot be visible from the street, it says nothing about being visible to the neighbors. After discussing possible alternative sites with the Commission, Mr. Aubrey felt it might be best to have a professional deal with the antenna placement. Mr. Aubrey concluded that he is either going to get the variance, or bring the antenna into compliance with the code; and, even if it is mounted on the ground, it will still be seen over the fence. Commissioner Christ expressed his concern with the issue in the community at large, as well as with the neighbors having to look at the intrusion. Commissioner Christ felt that there was an opportunity to relocate the antenna and that any hardship presented would be self-imposed. -4- Commissioner Dickson expressed his concern about the lack of expert testimony; conflicting information relating to reception, heights, exposures, and power lines; and, that a moving or rotating antenna is not really addressed in the ordinances. Commissioner Dickson felt that the Commission should stand behind the ordinance, or there will be a constant barage of applications for variances with people saying they were unaware of the ordinance when they installed their dish antenna. Additionally, all the recommendations for screening the antennas with landscaping will present a sunlight obstruction problem eventually. Commissioner Dickson continued that there should be a limit to how much the City has to do to meet the FCC regulations, and there should be a difference between the residential and commercial antenna uses. Commissioner Walker felt that the ordinances were adopted to regulate what might be considered as a modern day blight. He spoke in favor of enforcing the codes for the sake of the neighborhood and for trying to get advice from a neutral expert. Commissioner Olszewski agreed with Commissioner Dickson regarding the planting of landscaping screens; noted that the neighbors were being positive in considering some type of landscaping screening, however, the financial burden should not be transferred to the neighbors for the plant materials and labor. Commissioner Olszewski noted that any expert opinion which could be obtained would be welcome. _ M/S: Olszewski, Walker - That this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 1987. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). The Commission requested Staff to try to obtain a professional in this field to give additional information and advice on alternative locations for this antenna; and, to obtain information from the County on their sattelite dish antenna regulations, in that the subject site is adjacent to an area within the County's jurisdiction. M 83-14A Request of Our Mother of Perpetual Help Post, G. Church for an extension of time for the use of two temporary structures on property known as 110 W. Latimer Ave. in an R-3-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of September 8, 1987, noting that Staff is recommending approval of a 12-month extension. Commissioner Dickson felt that it should be made very clear that these units are not trailers used for storage, but rather classroom units. With this in mind, Commissioner Dickson stated that he had no problem with approving an extension. -5- Commissioner Olszewski expressed his concern with the aesthetics and safety of the trailers, noting that the area beneath the trailers is easily accessible and could be considered an attractive nuisance to children. Commissioner Olszewski felt that, considering the length of times the units have been at this location, they should skirted as a safety precaution. Mr. Kee reported that the application has been referred to the Fire Department, and must meet any requirements they deem appropriate. Commissioner Christ stated that he did not have a problem with another extension at this time; however, four years is somewhat long to be considered as a "temporary' use; and, he would be inclined to look less favorable on the situation should it continue much longer. Commissioner Stanton expressed a concern with the safety of the trailers, in that they are on jacks, rather than piers. Mr. Harmon Johnson, Business Manager, noted that the church has been actively looking for a new location, but without success. They have not made any improvements to the trailers because they do consider them temporary; however, if the Commission deems it necessary, the church will take action to provide some type of concrete pier for the units. Commissioner Dickson noted that the trailers have been in use for three years, kith no problems. M/S: Dickson, Walker - That the Planning Commission adopt the following findings and grant a 12-month extension to use two temporary structures at 110 W. Latimer Ave. Findings: 1. The Church has demonstrated that they are attempting to resolve the problem by locating a larger facility. 2. No complaints have been received regarding the use of the trailers. 3. Parking is adequate with the shopping center across the street. 4. The trailers are not visible from the street. Discussion on motion Commissioner Olszewski stated that he would be voting against the motion, in that he perceived a safety problem with the lack of skirting around the trailers. Commissioner Stanton stated that he would be voting against the motion pier blocks and skirting were required as part of the motion. -6- Commissioner Dickson stated that the Commission is here to receive expert testimony and act on that information. Previous considerations by the Fire and - Building Departments have not shown any concerns with this use. Commissioner Christ spoke in favor of the motion, noting that they applicant might consider the suggested improvements if the trailers are still is use next year and another extension is requested. Roll call vote on motion: AYES: Commissioners: Christ, Walker, Dickson, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: Stanton, Olszewski ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas. * * t The Commissioner recessed at 9:15 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:30 p.m. * * • R 87-05 Reinstatement of application of Mr. S 86-06 William Chalmers for a reinstatement of Chalmers, W. approved plans and approval of a phasing plan to construct 4 industrial buildings on . property known as 700 McGlincey Ln. in a M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of September 8, 1987. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee concurs with the additonal conditions and findings, and is recommending approval. There was discussion regarding the fencing around the residential site to the north; and, regarding the removal of existing structures during Phase I. M/S: Walker, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt the following findings, and reinstate the project subject to the attached phasing schedule, previously adopted Conditions of Approval, and the additional Conditions of Approval which are indicated in the Staff Report of September 8, 1987. Findings: 1. There have been no changes in the General Plan or the zoning for the area since the project was approved on August 12, 1986. 2. There have been no changes in the overall project. 3. Adequate parking and circulation is provided in each phase of the project. -7- Discussion on motion Commissioner Dickson stated that he would be opposing the motion in that there is not adequate landscaping .buffer between this project and the residential property to the immediate north. Vote on motion SA 87-52 Brown, L. Motion carried with a vote of 5-1-1, with Commission Dickson voting 'no•, and Commissioner Kasolas being absent. Signing request - 210 E. Hacienda Ave. - Zilog, Inc. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of September 8, 1987. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval, subject to the reduction of the existing sign (A3). Mr. Larry Brown, applicant, indicated that the sign is needed because the trees make signing on the building ineffectual. M/S: Dickson, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt the following findings and approve the applicant's signing request subject to the following modifications: (1) Providing Hacienda Business Center and address information on the base of the sign, and (2) Reducing the size of the sign previously approved at the Hacienda Ave. entrance to the project from 6' X 8' to 4.5' X 6' (Sign A3.); and subject to the condition that the applicant secure any necessary permits from the Building Department. Findings: 1. The proposed sign is consistent with the scale of the project, in terms of the number of buildings involved and the extensive street frontage on Dell and Hacienda Aves. 2. The proposed sign is well designed and blends in with the architecture of the buildings. 3. Due to the size of the project, the proposed sign is in the best interest of the public and serve the public welfare. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). -8- SA 67-55 Sign application of Mr. Hal Nelson for a Nelson, H. wall sign at the rear of the building at 410-450 Marathon Dr. in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of September 8, 1987. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee concurs with Staff and the applicant; however, it is not recommending approval, but rather a continuance in order that the applicant might be able to design something more substantial than a painted sign. Mr. Hal Nelson, applicant, stated that the proposed sign is very protected.; it should not have weathering problems; it should withstand vandalism better than plastic; is scheduled for repainting every three years; and is mainly to serve as a directory. Mr. Nelson indicated that he would rather put up a plastic sign than have the matter continued. Discussion ensued regarding the signing materials (plywood) versus plastic; and, appearance and colors. Commissioner Dickson noted that the Commission is going too far in designing the applicant's sign. The applicant has expended funds to upgrade the building end it is doubtful he would harm it's appearance with a poor quality sign. M/S: Walker, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt the following finding and approve this application. Finding: 1. The commercial building on Marathon Dr. is unusually difficult to locate in comparison to similar uses because it is blocked from view from Hamilton Ave. due to the construction of a new retail building. Discussion on motion Commissioner Olszewski opposed the motion, indicating that he did not have adequate information. Commissioner Christ opposed the motion, in that he felt the signing materials should be changed. Commissioner Walker supported the motion, noting that the applicant has worked closely with Staff and put a great deal of thought into the sign design. Roll call vote on motion: AYES: Commissioners: Stanton, Walker, Dickson, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Christ ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas. -9- Staff Report Staff Report regarding policies on landscaping and retention of existing vegetation. Principal Planner Stafford reviewed the Staff Report of September S, 1987. Commissioner Dickson felt it was important that the Commission understand that Staff goes through a very thorough review of the landscaping on a site before the issue gets to the Commission. Commissioner Olszewski felt that perhaps this issue was a topic for discussion at a study session. He continued that the City needs to have foresight in taking care of these potential problems; perhaps a "grading permit" would be the answer. Commissioner Olszewski suggested that Staff might start preliminary investigations into the parameters of grading permits as a means of controlling the elimination of certain beneficial vegetation. Commissioner Christ felt that the Commission may need to look at the broader picture in the form of a "tree ordinance". M/S: Dickson, Stanton - That this Staff Report be noted and filed, and that this issue be scheduled for discussion at a future study session. OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSIONER Chairman Perrine requested Staff to agendize the issue of a study session for the meeting of September 22, 1987; and to prepare a list of topics for discussion at such a session. • * t ~T).T(1TIRNMF.NT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. APPROVED: Jay Perrine Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording secretary Mr. Arthur A. k:ee 9-1^c-87 F'1 anni ng Director City of Campbel 1 7C> North First St. Campbell, Ca. 95008 Dear Mr. k,ee: The meeting of 8-11-@7 was rather shocF;ing and quite frustrating to us. Not because of the Agenda or the Commission, but because of our two neighbors who spoE::e during the publ i c heari n.g. Neither of these neighbors had spoE;en to us about the dish before yesterday. Iri fact Mr. Armstrong, 1~~ Peter Dr., came to our house at 7:10 pm. introduced himself and tried to bribe us regarding another matter using your meeting as a weapon. Mr. Armstrong had never even said hi to us before yesterday. His opening comments were, "Some of your neighbors and I would like to maE;e a deal with you." Then later he stated "_I dvn't care about the satellite dish, it doesn't bother me." He said if we didn't sign an agreement at that time he would come to the meeting and argue against the dish. At the meeting our item was scheduled rather Iate. It was #9 on the agenda.. A break was called about 9 pm. At the end of the br~eaF; before the meeting resumed Mr. MarE; Bara, 14 Peter Dr. , asked us to step into the lobby and speak: with him and Mr. Armstrong. At this time they again asE;ed us to sign-an agreement regarding another matter and they would leave. We again said we could not do this. We were discussing the situation when we were called bacE:: into the room because the commissioners had called ~ i our item out of sequence in the agenda. It should be pointed out j that these two gentlemen had never ever brought-this problem to our attention although it has e:<isted for over two years. Because of the aforementioned conversation we did not here -the opening comments from the commission, the staff report or Mr. Bouchard. Mr. Armstrong lives diagonally across F'eter Dr. A view from his house shows most of the antenna blocked by our own house and trees. He stated in public that he could see the entire antenna from his house. Mr. tiara's house is only a few feet frorr+ the fence with the kitchen area directly behind our ta-11 hedge. They can only see the top of the antenna witch is bf -mesh contraction and can be seen thru. Mr. Bara also said -in public that he had the same view from his kitchen window that I had in a picture that was taE::en ten feet behind the antenna in our patio. The attached photos will give you a true picture of the e>;posure of the antenna. These pictures clearly show that Mr. Armstrong and Mr. '8ara made false statement=_~ to the commission. As we told both-men in the lobby on B-11-87 if they had brought the other matter to~'our~ attention we would have taken care of it as soon 'as possible but we would not sign a bribery statement. ___ 1 We have always been straight forward and discussed items of concern with our neighbors and quic4;ly solved any problems. These people are newcomers to the neighborhood and their devious tactics are not the customary way we solve problems. Noai that they have brought up their concern about the other item we are ta~::ing steps to solve it. The above mentioned type of behavior should not prevent us from receiving satellite T.V. reception. The attached site and elevation drawings and photos indicate the only other location where a dish antenna could be located. This would involve moving the antenna about ten feet west and twelve feet north. This in turn would involve breaE::ing out that portion of our cement patio, then moving the pole from its present location. It is anchored in two by two feet of cement four feet deep. Moving to this new location would be very e.:pensive. This location would be more visible from some parts of Peter Dr. but would not be visible from Campbel Ave. It would be as visible if not more visible far Mr. Pouchard at 148 Campbel ave. It is impossible to receive satellite signals from a ground level instalation. The problems with the area are as follows: 1. Hear of bedrooms area is ?1 feet wide and the signal would be bi oc~:ed by our house and the PG°~E 1 i nes. ~. Rear grass area , signal b 1 ocL::ed by F'GQ<E 1 i nes, trees and the neigbors two story house. 3. Cement patio area, signal blocE::ed by our house, trees and the neigbors two story house. The current position was the most inconspicuos place we could find on our property. We are not opposed to planting a row of cypress trees along our northwestern fence line as this would in time hide the antenna from most of F'eter Drive. However. upon inspection most of F'eter Drive is already blocked from view because of e::isting growth. We are sorry that the Bouchard's have to see the antenna. As already has been stated we have placed the antenna in the most inconspicuos place possible. Lut the code says we have to try to hide it from the street not from our neigbors. Therfore we would asF:: the commission to approve the deviations requested. 'n er F.i char n~rothy Aub ey ' cc/ Planning Commission Members ~, PHASING SCHEDULE Phase I Building permits to be obtained by September 8, 1988 and Phase I to be completed by September 8, 1989. Phase II Building permits to be obtained by September 8, 1989 and Phase II to be completed by Septembec 8, 1990. Failure to obtain building permits by the above referenced dates will render the application void. Phase I permits must be obtained prior to Phase II permits. Phase I must be completed prior to occupancy of Phase II, or both phases to be developed concurrently. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R 87-05 & S 66-06 SITE ADDRESS: 700 McGLINCEY LN. APPLICANT: CHALMERS, W. P.C. MTG.: 9-8-87 1. All Conditions of Approval to be satisfied in Phase I and all on-site and off-site improvements to be completed in Phase I with the following exceptions to be completed in Phase II: A. Construction .of buildings ~1 and #4 as indicated on plans dated August 27, 1987. B. Small landscape area to the east and west of building #1 as indicated on plans dated August 27, 1987. All other landscape areas to be installed in Phase I. C. Parking and driveways for building ~1 and #4 as indicated on plans dated August 27, 1987. 2. All areas not covered by buildings, paved driveways and parking, and landscaping in Phase I shall be oiled and screened and made available for additional auto parking. Oiled and screened areas shall not be used for outside storage of materials, supplies, heavy equipment and trucks or similar vehicles. ~3. All previously existing buildings and structures on the site to be fr removed prior to final inspection and occupancy of any portion of Phase I construction. 4. Plans approved August 12, 1986 by the Planning Commission, including all redlining, shall remain in effect except for phasing detail- dated August 27, 1987. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: R 87-OS 5 S 66-06 SITE ADDRESS: 700 McGLINCEY LN. APPLICANT: CHALMERS, W. P.C. MTG.: 9-8-87 Recommended findings for Reinstatement and Approval of Phasing 1. There have been no changes in the General Plan or the zoning for the area since the project was approved on August 12, 1986. 2. There have been no changes in the overall project. 3. Adequate parking and circulation is provided in each phase of the project.