Loading...
PC Min 05/26/1987PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES MAY 26, 19$7 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, Olszewski, Christ, Walker, Dickson, Perrine; Planning Director A. A. Kee, Planner II Marty Woodworth, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Christ, Stanton - COMMUNICATIONS That the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 1987, be approved as submitted. Motion carried with a vote of 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Kasolas and Dickson abstaining due to absence from that meeting. 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 issue that was not on the agenda. There being no one, the Chairman proceeded with the set agenda. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS City Manager Information report regarding Phase II of the consultant's report - Downtown Study Revitalization Analysis. Mr. Kevin Duggan, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency, reviewed Phase II of the Revitalization Study at length, and answered questions. -2- Discussion ensued regarding possible parking alternatives; types of zoning and mixed uses appropriate for the downtown area; recommendations of the consultant and recommendations of City staff; development densities and floor area ratio; property owner financial participation; possible relocation of the Museum; possible methods to provide better identification for the downtown area; recommendations for the Gilman/Dillon/Railway area; and, long and short term plans for the Salmar/Harrison entrance. It was the consensus of the Commission that Commissioners should relate their comments and concerns to the City Manager after the meeting, due to the length of this evening's agenda. The Commission recessed at 8:25 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS PD 87-01 Continued public hearing to consider the Bonnett, R. application of Mr. Robert Bonnett for a Planned Development Permit, approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow a commercial office _ _ development on property known as 145 ~ Dillon Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The plans have been redlined to indicate an increase in the size of Space #3 to 28'x10' to be a handicapped parking space; a trash enclosure has been redlined on the plans, with the specific design to come back to the Site Committee, along with the landscaping plan. The Committee is coming before the Commission with no recommendation. Planner II Marty Woodworth reviewed the application for the Commission, and noted that the applicant's attempts to provide additional parking have been unsuccessful, although he has submitted an agreement indicating willingness to participate in a parking district. Staff, however, is recommending denial based on the opinion that entering into an agreement to join a parking district that may, or may not, happen is not a proper way to justify the lack of parking for this project. Commissioner Dickson asked how long this project has been in existence in its current state; and, if there have been any complaints regarding parking in this specific area. Mr. Woodworth indicated that Staff has received no specific complaints, _` although there is a parking shortage in this whole general area. Additionally, the illegal use of this property has been in existence since 1985, or longer. -3- Planning Director Kee clarified that floor space has been added to this development without approval or the provision of parking, which directly affects the parking situation in this area. Commissioner Stanton asked when street improvements were projected for this area. Engineering Manager Helms responded that Council policy provides for improvements to be made by developers; and, that projected improvements and a possible parking district are two separate issues. Commissioner Walker asked if it would be acceptable to Staff if the enclosed parking area on this site were to be opened up. Mr. Woodworth noted that Staff had suggested this approach in it's last report; however, the applicant did not appear interested in that approach. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. James Eller, attorney for the applicant, noted that the property owner purchased the property in its current condition. The owner is willing to cooperate; however, removing office space would result in an economically unviable property. Additionally, this development is certainly not a singular source of parking problems in this area, but rather it creates less of a problem than other developments in the area; the project is an asset to the community from an architectural standpoint; and, the owner has agreed to become part of a parking district. Mr. Eller continued that in past discussion with Staff, the applicant has been lead to believe that 14 parking spaces would be adequate, rather than the required 22 spaces. What the applicant is suggesting is a number of alternatives -- a parking district; property that can be purchased nearby to provide off-site parking; arrangements with the railroad to utilize some tight-of-way; arrangements with the nearby church. Commissioner Olszewski expressed his concern with the lack of progress on this application, noting that the applicant indicated these possible alternatives at the last meeting, and the situation is status quo. Mr. Eller stated that discussions have been held with Staff, and a possible agreement has been drafted through working with the City Attorney. Because of the impression that this agreement would be a principal remedy, other alternatives were not actively pursued. .There has been little time to prepare a response to the most recent Staff Report due to the holiday. Commissioner Dickson asked Mr. Eller if he was willing to actively pursue off-site parking. Mr. Eller indicated that he has briefly discussed the matter with the nearby church, but has not pursued the matter because discussion at Staff level indicated that this would not be a recommended approach. At this time, the applicant would be willing to actively pursue this alternative; however, it would take a couple of months due to the number of people and boards involved in the matter. -4- Commissioner Dickson asked Mr. Kee about the feasibility of using the church lot. Mr. Kee stated that this matter has been going on for two years, with no resolution. Staff has no objection to a continuance if it will result in a solution to this problem. Commissioner Dickson stated that he would also like to see the situation resolved. He continued that the Council has already set a precedent with a restaurant use in the downtown area by letting the applicant agree to join a parking district; and, this property is only one block away from the downtown. Commissioner Kasolas noted that this property is outside the loop street, therefore it is not applicable to the precedent. Additionally, the policy stipulates that each site provide it's own on-site parking. Commissioner Kasolas commented that policy decisions are not within the Planning Commission's purview. Commissioner Olszewski asked Mr. Elle* if his client would be agreeable to a continuance. Mr. Eller stated that a continuance would be acceptable, with a minimum of two months being requested, in that his client would also like to pursue possibilities with the railroad. Mr. Eller stated that he could report back to the Commission regarding their progress at that time. _.__ ~ M/S: Christ, Walker - That the public hearing on PD 87-01 be closed. Motion carried 5-2-0. Commissioner Dickson stated that he would like to see the item continued for a possible resolution. Commissioner Christ noted that another alternative would be to recommend to the City Council that they give the applicant a three month period to provide the City with detailed plans of parking, on or off-site, or require the applicant to change the building back to the prior approval. This would give the applicant the time to come up with parking, and give the Commission the security of a resolution. M/ Christ, That the Planning Commission forward this application to the City Council with the recommendation that the applicant be given three months to provide detailed plans for the required parking; or, if the applicant is unable to do so in that time, that the building be returned to it's previous approval, providing on-site parking satisfactory for this project. Motion died for lack of a second. -5- M/S: Olszewski, Dickson - That the public hearing on PD 87-01 be re-opened. Motion carried 5-2-0. M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - Discussion on motion That the public hearing on PD 87-01 be continued for one month (June 23, 1987) in order that the applicant may pursue alternative parking. Commissioner Olszewski stated he would be speaking in favor of the motion because he felt this should be handled at the Planning Commission level. Commissioner Christ stated that he would be opposing the motion, in that he did not feel this would achieve a resolution. Commissioner Christ expressed a concern that he would like to see the Commission making positive moves, rather than have so many appeals going to Council. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the purpose of his second on the motion was to allow the Commission to act as a conciliatory body, and to give the applicant some direction. Although the applicant has had two years, he needs additional time. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Olszewski, Walker, Dickson, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: Christ ABSENT: Commissioners: None. r t • S 87-04 Public hearing to consider th=~ Anderson, K. application of Mr. Kurt Anderson for approval of plans and elevations to allow an addition to an industrial building located on property known as 615 McGlincey Ln. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending a continuance, with the applicant's concurrence. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Kurt Anderson, applicant, concurred with the recommendation for continuance. M/S: Stanton, Olszewski - That the public hearing on S 87-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 1987. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). t * r -6- GP 87-05 Public hearing to consider the Anderson, K. application of Mr. Kurt Anderson for a General Plan Amendment from High Density --' Residential to Professional Office for properties known as 3803 & 3835 S. Bascom Ave., from Low Density Residential to Professional Office for the easterly portion of property known as 1956 4hiteoaks Rd. Planner II Marty Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report of May 26, 1987. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Kurt Anderson, applicant, stated that he has discussed this application with the property owner to the south (14419 S. Bascom Ave.), and this property owner has indicated his interest in a General Plan change, but does not want any increase in his taxes. Mr. Anderson expressed his concern with realigning the western property line for his application back 35' because of the property needed for parking. It is the intent that the Professional Office development be accessible only onto Bascom Ave., with the building being close to Bascom and the parking being, in the rear, adjacent to the residential on Whiteoaks Rd. Additionally, development plans would provide for substantial landscape screening. Mr. Anderson noted that, although he has a concern with moving the property line as indicated in the Staff Report, he is in agreement with the other conditions. Mr. Tom Feasby, 1936 4hiteoaks Rd., asked about the number of stories being proposed. Mr. Woodworth responded that the P-O Zoning District limits the height to 2-1/2 stories, or 35 feet. Mr. Feasby stated that 2-1/2 stories would present a definite impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood and it's property values. Mr. Rudolph Herz, 1888 Whiteoaks Rd., President of Whiteoaks Neighborhood Watch Association, appeared to represent 180 single family properties in the area. Mr. Herz stated that the area is endangered because of the commercial sites surrounding it. At this time, a traffic study is being conducted to address some of the concerns resulting from a meeting last year with the Mayor and the City Manager. It is the opinion of the Association that this proposal is detrimental to the neighborhood and should be denied. The proposed parking against the residential areas presents a burglary problem. The General Plan calls for a high density buffer for this area, and the City should adhere to that plan. Plannino Director Kee indicated that the high density residential use would allow a more intense development than a professional office zoning. A high density residential development could be built as high as 6 _ stories, although most development along Bascom are 2 of 2-1/2 stories. -7- Mr. Herz noted that he currently backs up to a condominium development, and he knows his neighbors just as well as if they were in a single family development. A commercial development i.s a high risk because one cannot get to know their neighbors, and you never know who is on the site. Mrs. Patricia Warner, 1172 Holmes Ave., spoke for the White Oaks Manor Neighborhood Watch, noting that a meeting was held on May 21, 1987, and this proposed General Plan was formally challenged on the basis of items indicated in a letter presented to the Commission (attached hereto). Mrs. Warner added that there is a parking problem with the existing medical offices on the corner of Whiteoaks and Holmes. People from these facilities park on Holmes, and even use the resident's lawns on which to eat their lunch. Nr. Dirk Bailey, 1945 Whiteoaks Rd., representing Cambrian Community Council, stated that the professional office uses have presented problems a]ong Whiteoaks Rd. It is the opinion of the Cambrian Community Council that another professional office development is not appropriate for this residential neighborhood; and, without the high density residential buffer, the single family neighborhood would suffer a detrimental impact. Mr. Lanny Bowden, 1956 Whiteoaks Rd., stated that the adjacent parcel to the north is a medical building; and, his mother would like to have the money from this property for her future. Mr. Anderson noted that concerns expressed by the residents can be mitigated with design features. Mr. Herz stated that there is no precedent established for making this area professional office, in that the. rest of the properties are zoned for high density residential. Mr. Peter Ban, 280 Browning Ave., spoke of the problems related to the offices in his area, noting that there is a great deal of noise 24 hours a day, excessive traffic, and encroachment of parking into the residential neighborhood. M/S: Kasolas, Christ - That the public hearing on GP 87-05 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Discussion Commissioner Walker asked if high density residential was the City's policy for buffering the single family neighborhoods. Mr. Kee indicated that there are various types of transitional uses in the City; and, that professional office use is generally less intense than high density residential use in terms of traffic, etc. -e- C M/S: Dickson, Christ - Discussion on motion That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this project; and, that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution No. 2460 recommending that the City Council deny GP 87-05 based on the following findings: (1) The existing General Plan of High Density Residential as a transition to Low Density Residential, with Professional Office across the street in San Jose, provides harmony. (2) There is no over-powering indication in the community of a shortage of office buildings, whereas, there is a shortage of residential units. Commissioner Olszewski stated that he would be voting against the motion. It appears that the concerns expressed (i.e. noise, criminal activity) could•be mitigated by design features; and, residential uses could still result in noise levels and criminal activity. Commissioner Christ stated that it is his honest belief that high density residential is more compatible with the area than a professional office. Commissioner Walker stated his agreement with Commissioner Olszewski, noting that there can be noise with all types of developments; however, he also felt that high density residential is more compatible with this particular neighborhood, therefore, he will be voting in favor of the motion. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Stanton, Christ, Walker, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Olszewski, Petrine ABSENT: Commissioners: None. t ZC 87-03 Public hearing to consider the Anderson, K. application of Mr. Kurt Anderson for a zone change from R-3-S (Multiple Family Residential) to P-O-S (Professional Office) for property known as 3803 and 3835 S. Bascom Ave. and a change in the prezoning of property under County jurisdiction from R-1-S (Single Family Residential) to P-O-S (Professional Office) for property known as 1956 Whiteaaks Rd. -9- Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Kasolas, Walker - M/S: Dickson, Walker - Discussion on motion That the public hearing on ZC 87-03 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). That The Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this proposal; and, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2461 recommending that the City Council deny ZC 87-03, based on the following findings: (1) The existing General Plan of High Density Residential as a transition to Low Density Residential, with Professional Office across the street in San Jose, provides harmony. (2) There is no over-powering indication in the community of a shortage of office buildings, whereas, there is a shortage of residential units. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he would be voting in favor of the motion because the proposal was not in accord with the General Plan. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Olszewski, Christ, Walker, Dickson, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. The Commission recessed at 10:03 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 10:15 p.m. GP 87-02 Public hearing to consider the Braatz, M. application of Mr. Mark Braatz for a General Plan Amendment from Commercial to Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 units per gross acre) on property known as 880 S. San Tomas Aquino Rd. and 1209 Smith Ave. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report (May 26, 1987). Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. -10- Mr. Mark Braatz, applicant, concurred with Staff's recommendation for continuance pending notification of the adjacent property. Pir. Leo Boyd, 945 Torero Plaza, stated that this application is an assault on the R-1 character of the neighborhood; expressed concern with increased traffic; asked that the condition of the multiple family properties ten years from now be considered; cited the condition of properties on Sunnyoaks Ave., asking that something be done to up-grade the area; and, opposed the general thrust of multiple zoning changes. M/S: Kasolas, Christ - That the public hearing on GP 87-02 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 1987. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). C Commissioner Dickson asked that an up-dated General Plan be provided for this area at the next meeting. * t + ZC 87-04 Public hearing to consider the Braatz, M. application of Mr. Mark Bcaatz for a zone change from C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) to R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) on property known as 880 S. San Tomas Aquino Rd. and 1209 Smith Ave. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff.Report (May 26, 1987). Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Kasolas, Stanton - That the public hearing on ZC 87-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 23, 1967. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). GP 87-04 Public hearing to consider the Hansen, R. application of Mr. Robert Hansen for a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (less than 4.5 units per gross acre) to Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 units per gross acre) on property known as 1075 and 1095 Hacienda Ave. Planning Director Kee reviewed the Staff Report of May 26, 1987; noting that, in Staff's opinion, the property could be developed with a low-medium density; however, it is Staff's opinion that no circumstances have changed since the previous application which would warrant approval of this application. In denying the previous application the Council made -11- a policy decision that changing the General Plan designation of the easterly parcel was not in the best interest of the City and would not be compatible with existing single family home development in the area. Staff would support this previous finding and recommend denial of the subject application. Mr. Kee noted a communication from Mrs. David Franklin, attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it was his understanding that in order to have a General Plan, various types of housing needs are required to be addressed by a community. He suggested that it might be appropriate for the Planning Director to address this requirement, and the fact that we could not have single family dwellings on a certain size lot. Mr. Kee indicated that density is a matter of policy determined by the community. Staff had previously indicated that this property could be developed as low-medium density; however, it is a matter of City policy that the density in this area is single family. Commissioner Kasolas asked what types of housing is stipulated in the Housing Element. Mr. Kee responded that the Housing Element requires housing to be provided for all economic segments of the community. Commissioner Dickson noted that the Commission went through some very severe and detailed hearings in the San Tomas Area and found that residents wanted some aces to be less dense, and this is one of the areas that was changed to have larger than minimum lot sizes. Commissioner Stanton asked about the width of the street at various locations, and the dedication requirements. Engineering Manager Helms indicated that the City's official plan line extended from Winchester Blvd. westerly to San Tomas Aquino Rd. providing for a 90 foot right-of-way, accommodating a four lane street. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Commissioner Dickson stated, for the record, that Mr. Hansen, the applicant, had contacted him during the week regarding this item, wanting to know what points would be looked at. Mr. Leo Boyd, 945 Torero Plaza, noted that his previous comments regarding GP 87-02 also related to this item, and requested that the record so indicate. Mr. Robert Hansen, applicant, referred to a letter he submitted to the City Clerk (attached hereto) clarifying the City Council's actions of December 16, 1986, regarding this property. Mr. Hansen continued that the Planning Commission has the authority to change policy; that he canvassed the neighborhood and a great deal of concern was expressed by the residents regarding the City process. Mr. Hansen distributed a copy of a -12- traffic study (attached hereto), noting that the study shows minimal traffic impact with any proposed development under the low-medium density zoning. Additionally, the applicant noted that a single family development could not substantiate the required street improvements for this property; pointed out a natural demarkation with the rear property line of property on Peggy Ave.; and, presented a petition with 143 signatures (attached hereto). Mr. Clarence Ogden, 987 Hacienda Ave., spoke in favor of the proposed change. Mr. Boyd noted that there is a great deal of pedestrian traffic along Hacienda Ave., and the difficulty of getting through the intersection of Hacienda and San Tomas Aquino Rd. at commuter time. Mr. William Frye, 1160 Sonuca Ave., stated that the Planning Commission should consider changing policy in order to do something for the neighborhood to make it a more desirable place to live. Mr. Gil Paxton, 1169 Sonuca Ave., stated that he had no objections to any development on the subject property. Mc. Hansen pointed out that all property owners of directly adjacent parcels have spoke in support of the proposed change. Mr. Hansen continued that the change in zoning would be in keeping with the intent of the San Tomas Study for large lots, noting that the average lot (developed at 9 units on this site) would result in approximately 3,300 sq.ft. per __ unit; whereas, the other duplexes in the area are on lots of 1,500 sq.ft. ~ each (if figured at 4.5 units per 8,000 sq.ft.). Mr. Hansen stated that the San Tomas Policy was never intended to be a no-growth policy, however, it has been re-interpreted as such. The. San Tomas Policy was framed with flexibility to allow legitimate exceptions. Commissioner Dickson requested the applicant to clarify his earlier statement regarding the City Council's previous actions. Mr. Hansen responded that there are some different circumstances from the original application. First, he was asked to handle the application, and he felt that there had been some major information that had not been presented to the Commission. Second, there had been a fire on the site in November 1986, and there was a concern in making sure that all of the intervening circumstances from that fire were taken care of to resolve community concerns to prevent neighbors from feeling "blackmailed" into agreeing with a higher density. When the applicant asked the City Council to refer the application back to the Planning Commission, the Council, procedurally, did not know how to accomplish that. Commissioner Dickson noted that this happened because the applicant said the Planning Commission had seen different plans -- and there were no plans officially presented for the Planning Commission. There was much confusion at the Council level as to what went on at the Commission level, and so they decided to deny this without prejudice to rive you another __ opportunity -- because of this confusion. Commissioner Dickson stated that he would like to record to show that no plans were submitted to the Planning Commissior. that night. That is the reason it was denied without prejudice. -13- Mr. Hansen stated that the former applicant, Jim Fox, said that he had presented the plans and talked about ingress/egress off the parcel and the general location of structures on the parcel. Mr. Hansen had thought this inappropriate, and this was one of the reasons a reconsideration was requested. M/S: Kasolas, Christ - That the public hearing on GP 87-04 be closed. Ftotion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Discussion Commissioner Dickson commented that the reason it was denied at the Council level was because the applicant presented different plans and they gave him the opportunity tore-present it; but, again, if one looks at the application, the Commission is looking at a spot General Plan change which leads to spot zoning. If there is going. to be a change in the General Plar, in this area, the remainder of Hacienda should be considered. This is an intrusion into the low density properties, and the proper step would be to consider 6 units per gross acre, rather than jumping to 6-13 units per gross acre. Commissioner Dickson concluded making an application for a General Plan change within a period of less than three months should be prohibited, and that the General Plan should be kept distinctive. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it is clear that everyone affected by the proposal is in favor of the change. Additionally, Commissioner Kasolas noted that his understanding of the San Tomas Policy is that it is not a no-growth policy. Commissioner Christ stated that there is a difference in deciding issues on the support of adjacent property owners and good planning. He expressed a concern with the depth of the property and how far it intrudes into Sonuca Ave. Commissioner Christ continued that the best planning would be to subdivide the property so that the rear portion would be single family facing the neighbors across the street, and put the multiple units facing Hacienda Ave. Commissioner Kasolas stated that this plan could be accomplished by raising the issue when plans are presented; and, that it is judgemental issue of where the buildings are located. Commissioner Christ did not agree. Commissioner Walker agreed with Commissioner Christ, and suggested that the issue of changing the General Plan for this entire section, up to San Tomas Aquino Rd., might be a study session topic. Commissioner Kasolas asked if the applicant might be ameniable to a continuance. -14- Mr. Hansen stated that he would agree with a continuance. He noted that he was trying to get through this application without re-opening the San Tomas hearings; and, that he has every intention of splitting off the back portion of this property for a single family residence. Commissioner Christ noted that the Commission cannot count on intentions, in that the property may change hands and the new owner~l come in with a proposal at maximum density, could M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2462, incorporating findings as indicated in the Staff Report of May 26, 1987, and recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this proposal, and deny GP 87-04. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Walker, Christ, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine ABSENT: Commissioners: None. * t t MISCELLANEOUS t TS 87-02 Lands of Vossoughi Tentitive Subdivision Map - Lands of Vossoughi - 586 Hacienda Ave. - APN 406-20-005. M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission find the proposed map to be in conformance with the General Plan; and, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve this tentative map, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report dated May 26, 1987. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). * * f Commissioner Kasolas left the chambers at 11:30 p.m. * t SA 87-14 Continued signing request - Fidelity Bryant, D. National Title - 51 E. Campbell Ave, - Interim Planned Development/Historic Overlay Zoning District. M/S: Dickson, Christ - That SA 87-14 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 1987 at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). -15- SA 87-09 Continued signing request - 1360 Billboard Co. Whiteoaks Rd. - White Oaks Mercedes - M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval, with the repainting of the existing sign and the addition of 10" letters on the front of the building (as redlined on presented plans), and reducing the signage to 40 sq.ft. Planning Director Kee noted that Staff is in agreement with this recommendation. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission approve SA 87-09, as redlined, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of May 26, 1987. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). • * f MM 87-04 Continued request of Mr. 0. J. Mitchell Mitchell, 0. to convert warehouse/industrial space to automotive-type use in an existing building located at 1360 Whiteoaks Rd. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. M/S: Walker, Dickson - SA 87-24 Midway Sign Co. That MM 87-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 1987. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). * ,r : Signing request - 1550 W. Campbell Ave. - Fabricland - C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval subject to redlining of presented plans. Redlining of plans indicates a 50 sq.ft. sign mounted on the facade of the building. Commissioner Walker noted that the Committee also suggested that Staff send a letter to the property owner suagestino that a signing program be considered for this shopping center. It was the consensus of the Commission that such a letter be sent, and that the Commission be apprised of follow-up regarding this matter. -16- There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. APPROVED: Jay Perrine Chairman M/S: Stanton, Walker - Staff Report That the Planning Commission approve SA 87-24, subject to redlining of presented plans and conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of May 26, 1987. Motion carried with a vote of 5-1-1, with Commissioner Dickson voting "no", and Commissioner Kasolas being absent. * * « Planning Commission Study Session - June 2, 1987. It was the consensus of the Commission that the following items be added to the list of study session topics: (1) Signing problems with shopping centers; (2) the Downtown Revitalization Study; and (3) the limiting of speaker's times at meetings. * t f SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Report City Manager's Office Capital Improvement Program - 1987-88. Barbara Lee, Administrative Assistant, reviewed the proposed Capital Improvement Program, and answered questions. M/S: Dickson, Christ - That the Planning Commission find that the proposed Capital Improvement Program is in conformance with the General Plan. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1, with Commissioner Kasolas being absent). t . Lfl.T(li1ANMFNT ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary White Oaks Manor Neighborhood 1Natch h °° "b A e a ~ on , e A d n . ~~ y ~~~ °i ~ ~ ~ May 22, 1987 We are White Oaks Manor Neighborhood Watch representing 188 single fani- ly homes. It is the goal of our organization to maintain the residential character of our neighborhood. On May 21, 1987 a special meeting was held by our organization to evaluate the "Notice of hearing" dated May 15, 1987 from the City of Campbell Planning Commission in regards to GP 87-05 and ZC 87-03, 1956 White Oaks Road. During that meeting a motion was moved, seconded, and passed un- animously to formally challenge the proposed amendment to the general plan, rezoning proposal, and the negative declaration from City of Campbell staff. Specifically: 1) According to Federal law -The people are part of the environment. Therefore, we believe that an Environmental Impact Report is required to due to the adverse effect these changes could have on the residents of White Oaks Manor. 2) According to the written intent of the original General Plan, agreed to by all cities and counties involved, there shall be a buffer of High Density Residential between Professional Office and Low Density Residential. We protest any deviation from the original plan. 3) We also protest any deviation from the original zoning of R-3-S for Bascom Ave. and R-1-S for White Oaks Road/Manor. The last time a rezoning was proposed in this area, residents came before the Campbell - -- City Council. Our objections were the same then as they are now and our position was upheld by the Campbell City Council. -- 4) A special meeting was held in August, 1986 between White Oaks Manor _~~~ Neighborhood Watch, Mayor Kotawski, City Manager Kevin Duggan, and - - Staff Engineer Keith Manley. At that time, both the Mayor and the City Manager assured us in the strongest terms that what was now residen- tial would remain residential on White Oaks Road. 5) Also at the above described meeting, the Mayor and City Manager promised notification to this organization of any proposed zoning changes, and, as yet, no officer of White Oaks Manor Neighbor Watch has been notified. 6) Currently there is a large surplus of vacant professional rental space in this area. Therefore, we feel that additional office space, at the cost of destroying our residential neighborhood, is inappropriate. 7) The current traffic study conducted by the City of Campbell Public .~. Works department does not reflect the increased volume of traffic that would result from the proposed general plan amendment and zoning changes. 8} The notification of this hearing was received less than 7 days (in- cluding a 3 day holiday weekend) before said hearing. As notice was not received in a timely manner we request a 9o day postponement of this hearing before any decisions on the proposed changes are made. White Oaks Manor Neighborhood Watch RUDOLF F~ HERZ Conwluny ErpTeer INa EMNprN~~ (40B) 559~173~ ~~c ,-, 1?~:". ITEM N0. 9 Planning Commission City of Campbell 70 N. First Street Campbell, CA 95008 May 26, 1987 Re: GP 87-04, 1075 & 1095 Hacienda Ave. Commissioners, As owners of a house located at the rezoning of the property at not think that spot zoning is a set a precedent which will even in the General Plan. Therefore, application. ~~, . ,, . , r ~_. ,~ ` ^~ qN NING of ~-~ 1033 Peggy Ct. we are opposed to 1075 & 1095 Hacienda Ave. We do good idea and feel that it will tually lead to an entire change we ask that you vote "NO" on this Thank You. ~ Sincerely, ~~a-~7 Mrs. David Franklin Robert Douglas Hansen 661 Pamlar Avenue San Jose, California 95128 (408)287-1500 May 26, 1987 Ms. Barbara Olsasky City Clerk, City of Campbell City Hall 70 North First Street Campbell, California 95008 Dear Ms. Olsasky: I am requestinq that the City Council's written minutes relative to GP 86-03 of 1075 Hacienda Avenue for the December 16, 1986 Council meeting be corrected to show that the Council voted by a 4-1-0 vote to deny the application without pre]ud~ce and to waive reappl~cat~on fees. The Council acted to procedurally refer the application back to the Planning Commission and they did not substantively decide the meats of the application at the meeting. This change coincides with the Council's intent as ref lected b the audio tape record of the meeting. Further, a Gecember 22, 1986 ~elephone conversation with Mr. Tim Haley verified that the application was denied without prejudice anq reappiicat~on fees waived, but that no revised letter was required to inform the applicant of the Counci 1's actions. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ~ .: ~i ,~ ~ ~ / f ~ ~' / %; %~ Robert Hansen cc John Carvalho Arthur A. Kee T0: City Council and Planning Commission City of Campbeii ,,, . ;^ FROM: Robert Hansen ~ ~~~~ DATE: May 26, 1987 SUBJECT: Traffic Study for 1075 and 1095 Hacienda Avenue The attached letter summarizes preliminary findings about future traffic levels on Hacienda Avenue relative to the requested General Plan change from Low Residential to Low-Medium Residential density. Hacienda Avenue is desi Hated as a four-lane arterial even thouggh policy and city budget restrains have prevented such improvement of the street. For comparison purposes, Union Avenue between Campbeii and Bascom Avenues is a two-lane street with traffic levels of 8,780 northbound and - ~_ 7,652 southbound. Both streets have other than single-family residential developments on them. K/~ ~ r r EARL G. HAGADORN ~ ~ ~ • . • ~ .' ---~ . CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEER _ ~, ~ _ ~ ~ • . _ a..• - ~ ~.• ~ . _ Mr. Robert Hansen • •, ,, :, _ May 22, 1987. • Government Affairs Advisor • . ~ - ~ ' `' - = • - ~ ~• ' 661 Pamlar Avenue San Jose, California 95128 Re: Potential Traffic•Impacts, 1075 and 1095 Hacienda Avenue ~• Dear Mr. Hansen: - ~ ~ ~ ~. - ~. -~ My initial assessment of your proposed project is that it should have ±•., a minimal effect.on existing traffic flows on Hacienda Avenue. Current '~. .• 24 hour traffic volumes would be increased by only some 1.6 ~. ~ •-'';_' ~ ~•~•~'~ ~ L` The proposed project and it's potential ,traffic impacts are based ~ ~ ~ . on the following: _ 1. Ingress and egress for the project would be directly onto•Hacienda. ``•.'~. • 2. The project would be built at the maximum density of 13 units for ~ ~ -.~~'~ 1.047 gross acres, as prescribed for a tow-Medium Residential° '• ~ .. •• General Plan designation.. _ • 3. 12-15 trips generated by each unit per day.. _ ~ _ 4. 195 total new dail trips. - , 5. Approximately 20 peak hour trips. ~ ~~ 6. Existing 24 hour volume counts of 6,638 westbound and 5,796 east- .- bound on Hacienda Avenue. ~ ~• ~- We would recommend Mr. Louis H. Larson, a traffic engineer who has performed••~ •• • nuemrous studies in the Campbell area, should you require further detailed ~' •_ studies. Also, Mr. Keith Manley in the Campbell City Public Works Department~~•, ~ ' (866-2150) may be of assistance in researching such issues.:.' .. - Very truly yours, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. .. Earl G. Ha dorn ~ ~ •. EGH:hg post office box X24, ~iomewood, California 95718 phone (916) 525 -6564 T0: City Council and Planning Commission City of Campbel? ~. FROM: Robert Hansen ; ;r DATE' May 26, 1987 SUBJECT: Petitions 1n Support of General Plan Change for 1075 and 1095 Hacienda Avenue Attached are two petitions signed by netghbors ~n support of the General Plan change for the subject properties. The first five-page petition contains twenty-five signatures collected since Thursday, May 21 and the second seven-page petition contains 134 signatures that were collected in August 1986. The recent petition focused on residents of immediately adjacent properties and within 300 feet of the applicant parcels, while the 1986 ;' petition covered a much larger area and related only to a General Plan chapge for the 1075 Hacienda property. Of those persons within the smaller area which were recently contacted and which signed the 1986 petition, all residents a reed to sign the petition once again. 1=1ve signers of the 1986 petition wit~in the smaller area were not able to be recontacted (not home when attempt made). Only two persons which were asked to sign the current petition refused to do so (both were not signers of the 1986 petition), and six additional residents within the smaller area signed the current petition but not the 1986 petition. Since there was no "drop off" of contacted signers between the two petitions and because of the high percentage of siggnatures for the current petition, it is correct to say that the current pet~f~on reflects a level of support for the General Plan change that equals, or exceeds, the support expressed by the 1986 petition. Together, the two petitions demonstrate broad, grassroots support for the requested change in density. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: SA 87-09 SITE ADDRESS: 1360 WHITEOAKS RD. APPLICANT: BILLBOARD COMPANY P.C. MTG.: 5-26-87 1 The use is so located in reference to surrounding uses and traffic circulation that a 30 sq. ft. sign would best serve the public welfare. 2. A sign of 30 sq. ft. would be consistent with the other address signing at this location and would be architectural compatible to this building. 3. Approval of this address sign would help in identifying the businesses at this location. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: SA 87-09 APPLICANT: BILLBOARD CO. SITE ADDRESS: 1360 WHITEOAKS RD. P.C. MTG. 5-26-87 1. Applicant to submit a revised signing proposal indicating a reduction in sign area to 30 sq. ft. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS: SA 67-24 SITE ADDRESS: 1550 CAMPBELL AVE APPLICANT: FABRICLAND P.C. MTG.: 5-26-87 1. The use is of such a size and is so located in reference to surrounding uses and traffic circulation that a 75 sq. ft. size sign is reasonable at this location. 2. The signing, as recommended by Staff, is well designed and architecturally compatible to the building. 3. Approval of a 75 sq. ft. sign at this location does not establish an undesirable precedent due to the uniqueness of this business location. This business is not identified by a freestanding sign. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: SA 87-24 APPLICANT: MIDWAY SIGN CO. SITE ADDRESS: 1550 W. CAMPBELL AVE. P.C. MTG. 5-26-87 1. Applicant to submit a revised sign plan indicating the reduction (12.5' X 4') and relocation of the sign proposed along San Tomas Aquino Rd. and, 2. Applicant to obtain any necessary building and electrical permits.