Loading...
PC Min 01/27/1987PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES JANUARY 27, 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 Present Commissioners: Kasolas (7:40 p.m.), Stanton, Olszewski, Christ, Dickson, Perrine; Planning Director A. A. Kee, Planner II Tim J. Haley, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of January 13, 1987 be approved as submitted. Motion carried with a vote of 5-0-1 (with Commissioner Kasolas not being present at the time of the vote). COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Perrine commented that the Civic Improvement Commission will be video-taping a portion of the meeting of February 10, 1982, for the City's "Living Scrapbook". Mr. Kee noted that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that. time. ORAL REQUESTS _ At this time, Chairman Perrine invited the .audience to come forth with items not agendized. There being no one wishing to speak under this portion_of the agenda, the meeting continued. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 86-19 Continued application of Mr. Marty Paisley, M. Paisley for approval of plans and - elevations to allow construction of an industrial building located on property known as 786 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S --` (Light Industrial) Zoning District. -2- (Commissioner Rasolas entered the Chambers at 7:40 p.m.) Planner II Tim Haley reported on this item, noting that the matter has been continued from three previous meetings in order that the applicant could submit revised plans; however, revised plans have not been received. Staff would, therefore, recommend that the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared, adopt the attached findings, and deny S 86-19. M/S: Dickson, Christ - (1) That the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for S 86-19; (2) That the Planning Commission adopt the findings, attached hereto as part of these minutes; and (3) That the Planning Commission deny S 86-19. Motion carried with a vote of 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Kasolas abstaining due to absence from the initial discussion of this item at this meeting. GP 86-04 Public hearing to consider the applica- Greylands Properties tion of Greylands Properties to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Professional Office to Professional Office and/or Low-Medium Density Residential on property known as 100 Poplar Ave. Communication (attached hereto) from Dee and Elizabeth Ribble, and Donald and Lola White read into the record by the Recording Secretary. Planner II Marty Woodworth indicated that Staff is of the opinion that the Low-Medium Density designation would be appropriate for the subject property for the following reasons: (1) This designation should result in a land use which is less intensive than office use in terms of traffic generation; (2) Residential development across the street from residential development is more compatible and consistent than office development facing a single family residential neighborhood; and (3) The creek provides a unique setting in which to focus a residential development. Mr. Woodworth concluded that it should be noted that approval of this General Plan amendment in no way approves the schematic development plan which has been submitted. The applicant will be required to file complete development plans and the environmental and aesthetic concerns will be studied in detail prior to any decision. (Staff Report dated January 27, 1987). Commissioner Dickson stated that, because the posting of plans for this _ proposal has the affect of possibly biasing the Commission and no affect ~ti on the applicant whatsoever, as well as confusing everyone, he found it very improper that plans were posted. General Plan amendments supposedly do not need to have plans presented with them. -3- City Attorney Bill Seligmann responded that, as an example of what would be possible under the proposed General Plan, it is not wholly improper; -- however, it is totally up to the Commission as to what can be allowed as evidence. Chairman Perrine stated that he would not ask that the plans be taken down, since plans have been posted in previous General Plan amendment proposals. Commissioner Christ stated that the application before the Commission is to consider a mixed use on the site; however, Staff appears to have supported the matter from a residential aspect only. Commissioner Stanton asked if the subject site was an old dump. Mr. Woodworth indicated that a soils report would have to be submitted at the time of development plans. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Ms. Jeannine Knight, 662 Hawthorne Ave., spoke against the proposed change. Ms. Knight noted that there are a lot of children in the area; there is fill on the west-side of the creek; and, there is no room in the area for parking for new development. She continued that this site. should be made into a park, in that. children cannot get to the park across the street because of traffic on Campbell Ave.. Ms. Knight concluded that there was a petition signed by many of the area residents, however, the person who passed the petition was not present at this evening's meeting. Ms. Carrie Williams, 600 Maple Ave., stated that she walked from door to door and talked with her neighbors. They all agreed that they want nothing built on this site. She thought that Greylands could dedicate the site for a park. New townhomes would. not blend into the neighborhood; and adding additional traffic to this neighborhood would be a hardship. Ms. Betty Grizzle, 607 Maple Ave., spoke against this proposal citing traffic in the neighborhood. She stated that she would prefer to have a small park. Mr. Robert Hicks, 43 N. Harrison Ave., representing Greylands Properties, spoke in favor of the proposed change. The property has been zoned for office use for many years, and no one has suggested-that it not be developed as office, or developed in another way. The residential use appears to be the best compromise to limit negative effects on the neighborhood. Guidelines used in making this determination were highest and best use, compatibility, and public need . Commissioner Christ asked Mr. Hicks why he requested a mixed use rather -- than just a residential use. -4- Mr. Hicks responded that he was advised that the mixed use was a category that could be applied for, and if the residential use could not feasibly be developed, the property could still be developed as office use. Commissioner Olszewski asked Engineering Manager Helms how parks money is used, and if the audience was so inclined that this land become a park - what the process would be for them to follow. Commissioner Kasolas indicated that this subject may be in violation of the Brown Act in that the issue before the Commission, under this application, is a General Plan amendment - not parks. Mr. Seligmann noted that the parks issue could be agendized for the next meeting if the Commission felt that it wished to discuss the matter. Commissioner Christ asked if the options were to leave the parcel as it is; to recommend a mixed use; or to recommend just residential. Planning Director Ree stated that the options available at this time were to leave it as is, or to recommend approval of a mixed use; or, to direct Staff to renotice the matter for public hearing and include the residential only or park options. Commissioner Dickson stated that he finds the presented traffic analysis faulty in that it discusses 8 townhomes, and there are no development plans before the Commission. However, it appears that Staff has based it's recommendation on this analysis. Mr. Helms noted that the presented traffic analysis was prepared by a consultant. Staff has some of the same concerns as the Commission, however, Staff felt that some of the proposed uses would be less intense than what the site is currently allowed to be developed as. Staff is of the understanding that the presented analysis was based on the average probable usage. If this amendment is approved, Staff would certainly request a-more detailed report. Commissioner Kasolas asked Mr. Helms if Staff was more comfortable, from a professional standpoint, that townhomes generated less traffic than office use. Mr. Helms responded that this was correct. Commissioner Christ asked what would be the maximum number of residential units which could be developed on this site. Mr. Haley indicated that the parcel is approximately one acre in size, therefore the maximum number of allowable units would be 13; however, the Planning Commission would have to take into account the existing parking usage on the site. -5- Mr. Ree clarified that the maximum number of allowable units would actually be less than 13j and, a complete traffic report and review by the -- Planning Commission would be required: The 8 units referred to this evening would only be representative of what might happen on the site. Commissioner Christ noted that a possible 8 units should not be discussed this evening, instead the discussion should be strictly from a standpoint of what the proposed change would allow. Commissioner Christ asked if the parking requirements would be different if this site was zoned for Professional Office. Mr. Kee indicated that the parking requirements would, in fact, be different. Commissioner Dickson asked about protection of the creek on this side of the bank: Mr. Kee noted that this issue would be addressed under the development plans. An EIR would be required which would speak to the creek channel, as well as other concerns. Mr. Ree continued that the General Plan on this site is currently indicated for office use, and the applicant could apply foz development of an office use tomorrow. Staff would require an EIR to address pertinent issues for an office development= and, Staff would have the same concerns, requiring and EIR and public hearing , if the site was changed to residential use. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the issue before the Commission is a General Plan amendment - based on what the Commission would like to see as appropriate planning for the community. If an EIR ie not required, then a Negative Declaration would be prepared. The Planning Commission .has the option to require an EIR if Staff does not initially require one. Commissioner Kasolas thought that the Commission has a duty to encourage usage of land, and the Commission should look at whether or not the requested use would be compatible with the neighborhood. Ms. Betty Grizzel asked where the current employees, who park on the site now, will park if the site is developed. Commissioner Kasolas noted that there are no development plans before the Commission at this time, and this issue would be addressed with the presentation of plans. Mr. Woodworth noted that plans approved in 1966 show that part of the existing parking on this site was required for the development to the south and would have to be maintained as such. Therefore, there would be no visitor or employee parking eliminated. Ms. Carrie Williams stated that the developer is being given carte blanche. It is evident that the creek is washing away. The residents recognize that the site could be developed, however, the project would not flow with the neighborhood. Ms. Williams asked how the issue of making this property into a park could be placed on the agenda. Additionally, '--- Ms. Williams asked that the curbs along Page Ave. be painted red to prohibit parking. -6- Ms. Yolanda Barrera cited traffic in the area from the existing office --- uses, and requested that the site be developed as a park. Additionally, Ms. Barerra noted the ambiguity of the proposal; asked where the vehicles from the townhomes would go; noted she would prefer offices to residential in that townhomes would have traffic all the time, and office traffic is usually limited to working hours during the week. Commissioner Olszewski asked Mr. Seligmann if an alternative General Plan definition such as "parks" were to be discussed, would it have to be agendized for the next meeting. Commissioner Olszewski felt that this rule did not given him enough choices, and that perhaps a continance would give the Commission the legal option to discuss the issues presented by the residents. Commissioner Kasolas indicated that he did not feel it was the Planning Commission's place to set policy for the City Council: What is being suggested is a very large financial consideration by the City: Commissioner Kasolas felt that the Commission should go on with the matter as it is being presented: Commissioner Christ noted that the applicant has presented a less intense land use, and perhaps a continance would allow further discussion as to what is the most appropriate land use for the area. Commissioner Dickson noted that the Commission could take action on the _ matter, and forward a memorandum to the City Council recommending that they consider a policy for parks on the site. Commissioner Dickson added that the neighborhood should be going to the Council asking for a park, if that is what they wish. Ms-. Jeannine Knight cited traffic problems and street conditions in the area. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it has always been the City's policy to be concerned with traffic patterns in the community; and, that development is one of the primary funding sources for street improvements. Ms. Yolanda Barrera asked, as a community, that the Commission decline the Low-Medium Density Residential use based on the ambiguity of the proposal. Additionally, ±he residents see that they must get together to speak for the development of a park. M/S: Stanton, Dickson - That the public hearing on GP 86-04 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0) . -~- M/S: Olszewski, Christ - (1) That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept ~- the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for GP 86-04; and, (2} That the Planning Commission adopt the following findings: A. That the application to amend the General Plan from Professional Office to Professional Office. and/or Low-Medium Density Residential would be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood] and, B. That the land use designation of Low-medium Density Residential may be detrimental to the creek environment] and (3) That the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council deny GP 86-04. Discussion on motion Commissioner Dickson commented that he would be voting in favor of the motion. The proposal for Low-medium Density Residential is attractive because Campbell needs good housing and this could be a fairly good area for that to to happen in; however, the way the traffic was analyzed presented the best position for the applicant. Commissioner Dickson continued that this method concerns him because one can look at the whole area and realize that there is a traffic and parking problem in the area. Serious impact on the neighborhood could result when you introduce vehicles on weekends where you would not have the problem with office use. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he would be voting against the motion. He felt that the motion was inappropriate based on the findings which .indicate that there is no appropriate zoning for this property - and there has to be some zoning possible. .The issue before the Commission is to add a new option to an existing land use designation. Commissioner Kasolas continued that it is apparent to him from the evidence and testimony of Staff that, even though one may not agree with the figures presented, the intent is that it is a less intense use; and, that the more mixed uses there are, the more problems there will be in the future; required EIR information will address the creek and riparian habitat; traffic reports will be required prior to any development; the :existing zoning shows commercial infringing into the residential area.; and, professional office uses generate more traffic than residential uses. Commissioner Christ noted that it would have to be assumed that low density would. create even less traffic; and, in that case, there may be some other General Plan land use that is more appropriate than either of those presented. Commissioner Christ felt that this issue really needs to be looked at by the City Council. -8- Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Christ, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Motion fails. M/S: Kasolas, Stanton - That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for GP 86-04. Motion carried with the following roll call votes AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Olszewski, Christ, Dickson, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. M/S: Kasolas, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt the following findings: (1) This designation should result in a land use which is less intensive than office use in terms of traffic generation] (2) Residential development across the street from residential development is more compatible and consistent than office development facing a single family residential neighborhood] and (3) The creek provides a unique setting in which to focus a residential development] and, that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve GP 86-04~. Motion fails with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Christ, Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: None. M/S: Kasolas, Olszewski - That GP 86-04 proceed to the City Council with no recommendation as the record reflects-. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). -9- M/S: Dickson, Olszewski - That a memorandum be forwarded to the City Council that requests the Council .~ to consider a General Plan change to 100 Poplar Ave. to allow a land use of "park". Motion carried unanimously. The Commission recessed at 9s00 p.m.j the meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m. * * : TA 86-03 Continued public hearing to consider a City-initiated proposed text amendment to Sections 21.41:130 & 21.:41:140 of the Campbell Municipal Code modifying the review procedure of applications for change of use, construction, demolition, relocation or material change in an Historic District. Planner II Tim Haley reported that an informational meeting was held, at the direction of the Commissioner, on January 7, 1987. At this meeting, the existing ordinance and the proposed ordinance as amended were discussed. The residents at this meeting expressed a concern that the ordinance both as it exists currently and as previously proposed did not provide for minor changes of buildings and/or structures in historic districts. In light of this concern, staff is recommending that a provision be added to the proposed ordinance which would give the Planning Director authority to review requests for modifications less than $15,000 in estimated construction costs. The following wording is recommended: "The Planning Director may review and decide applications for Special Development Permits where the estimated cost of construction is less than $15,000 and where, in the Planning Director's opinion, the proposed change satisfies the findings as set forth in Subsection I of this section. If the Planning Director finds that the proposed modification will have a substantial adverse effect on the integrity of the historic district, he shall deny the request or may refer the application to the Historic Preservation Board for its review and decision." Commissioner Olszewski asked how the amount of $15,000 was determined. Mr~. Haley indicated that the assessed valuation of construction is typically determined by the Building Department. Staff is of the opinion that a minor alteration to a structure can be accomplished for under $15,000. -10- Commissioner Rasolas asked if someone wanted to remodel his kitchen, costing under $15,000, he would have to come to the City for historic review? Mr. Haley noted that the ordinance relates to exterior changes only. Commissioner Kasolas asked if there is any downside risk in the adoption of an ordinance of this type. Mr. Haley responded that Campbell does not have any historic districts, therefore, Staff is unable to answer this question at this time. Commissioner Kasolas asked if there have been any indications of problems occuring as a result of restrictive ordinances? Mr. Haley answered that he was not aware of problem. It is possible that a property owner could move to demolish his structure. Commissioner Rasolas asked if this matter was before the Historic Preservation Board. Mr. Haley noted that there is not a full Historic Preservation Board at this time, therefore the proposed changes indicated in the Staff Report (dated January 27, 1987) have not been considered by the Board. Commissioner Stanton asked what other communities in the area have historic districts.. Mr. Haley indicated that Los Gatos has historic districts in effect. Commissioner Christ noted that Commissioner Kasolas alluded to the fact that people in opposition of historic designation may chose to destroy their property prior to a designation. The City has had single properties which have been designated historic. Were any of those properties destroyed upon the onset of the designation on the structure? Mr. Haley stated that he was not aware of any properties being destroyed under these circumstances. Mr. Haley added that the meeting on January 7, 1987, was attended. by five residents of Alice Ave.j and, those who attended appeared to be satisfied with the clarification provided by Staff. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it is not his intent to be argumentative] however, he is of the belief that it is the Commission's duty to gather as much factual information as possible in order to carry out .it's charges. He asked if these requirements could cause problems in the future, in that they are not self-imposed - the property owner did not voluntarily chose to have a historic designation put on his property. -11- Mr. Haley noted that the ordinance provides several ways f ~ property can be designated historic. Such a request for -- come. from the property owners; the .Planning Commission] Improvement Commission] or the City Council: by which a designation can the Civic Mr. Kee clarified that it is possible that there are property owners along Alice Ave. who might not be in favor of a historic designation being placed on their property; and, yes, there are several methods by which designation may take place on properties. Mr. Haley noted that the matter before the Commission at this time is a text amendment,-which is separate from, and not related to, Alice Ave. The text amendment is a review procedure for a historic district. Commissioner Stanton asked if the amount of $15,000 could be adjusted? Is there an automatic inflation ratio built into the ordinance? Mr. Haley stated that there is not an inflation factor built into the ordinance; and, the Planning Commission may wish to adjust this suggested amount. ., Chairman Perrine asked what the difference is between landmark designation and district designation. Mr. Haley explained that a di&trict designation would allow the review of a special development permit (a less lengthy procedure). The proposed ordinance provides less restrictive and less time-consuming restrictions for properties in a district. Commissioner Dickson asked if these matters could be handled similarly to minor modification of Planned 'Development Permits at the Planning Commission level; and why the simplification appears to bypass the Planning Commission. Mr. Haley noted that this would bg possible. Staff was attempting to reduce. the review procedure for smaller changes. Commissioner Dickson asked why the simplification appears to bypass the Planning Commission. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Commissioner Barbara Conant, Chairman of the Civic Improvement Commission, spoke in favor of the proposed text amendment. The proposed amendment attempts to make being a part of an historic district less cumbersome for property owners. Commissioner Conant noted that the historic preservation ordinance was started ten years ago, and since then, there is evidence that people in such an historic district tend to care for their -- homes. The Civic Improvement Commission would not have recommended the formation of such a district if they felt that the ordinance would be a hinderance to the City, or that people would not want to keep up their '- homes. The proposed ordinance attempts to make it easy for people. to retain the identity of their home and yet be within an historic district. -12- Commissioner Kasolas asked Commissioner Conant if she would consider it appropriate to add a provision that a district would not be formed without first obtaining permission of at least 60$ of the property owners and residents within that proposed district. Commissioner Kasolas continued that his main concern is asking someone to do something that he would not do himself] and, that he finds difficulty with imposing requirements upon people that are not fairly accepted or should be reasonably accepted-. Commissioner Conant noted that the only reason the next agenda item, the designation of Alice Ave. as an historic district, is before the Commission at this time is because 608 of the people on Alice Ave. came to the Civic Improvement Commission asking for help to initiate the formation of such a district. Commissioner Stanton asked if the resale value of properties in historic districts was researched. Commissioner Conant indicated that this matter was researched, and no restrictions were found. Commissioner Christ asked if there were provisions that would allow a major modification to a house, such as a second story or rebuilding a destroyed structure. Mr-. Haley responded that the ordinance does not preclude someone from adding onto their home. Review guidelines would require that the addition be sensitive to the surrounding properties and the integrity of the neighborhood. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the public hearing on TA 86-03 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0) . M/S: Christ, Olszewski - Discussion on motion That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for TA 86-03j and, that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 21.41.130 as indicated in the attached exhibit. Commissioner Olszewski stated that this text amendment is a modification, to an existing ordinance, which clarifies issues and streamlines procedures] and, in his opinion, this is a definite improvement over the initially proposed amendment. Commissioner Olszewski felt that the parties who have invested their time and effort, including Staff, have more than done an adequate joh. -13- Commissioner Dickson stated that he would be opposing the motion. He '' expressed his appreciation to Commission Conant for trying to move this matter forward] however, he felt that the amendment complicated, rather than simplified,. matters. Commissioner Dickson spoke in favor of handling the modifications at the Planning Commission level, noting that he is reluctant to pass on authority for these types of situation to a Board that is not accustomed to these situations, and a Board that is having problems existing. Commissioner Rasolas noted that the City has charged a particular body with the overall planning functions and then all of the sudden there is a particular area that wauld not have the direction of the Planning Commission. The district should be at the request of a majority of the area residents. Commissioner Rasolas indicated that he has great difficulty with the district as currently presented, and that he did not want to impose conditions on others that he could not live with himself. Vote on motion AYES: Commissionerss Olszewski, Christ, Perrine NOESs Commissionerss Kasolas, Stanton, Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: None Motion for approval fails. -- Commissioner Christ noted that there are a lot of things that don't come before the Planning Commission because they meet the current code. In this case, where things are spelled out, he did not see a need for the matter to come before the Commission. The amount of power the Commission is giving. up is really minor, and it is in the interest of making things easier for the residents. M/S: Olszewski, Dickson - In consideration of the number of times this item has been before the Planning Commission, and in the interest of fairness to any newly appointed Commissioner, that this matter be forwarded to the City Council with the .subject minutes. Discussion on motion Commissioner Kasolas spoke against the motion, noting that the Commission's job is to make a recommendation. Commissioner Kasolas felt that the Commission should make one more attempt at resolving the issues, in that it may be possible to get a consensus of opinion, He suggested that a motion be made to reopen the public hearing, comments be made, Staff be asked to address various issues, and an attempt be made for a consensus of .policy on those issues. -14- Commissioner Olszewski stated that the issue has been discussed for a number of meetings, and he believed it would be of great benefit for a decision to be made for the residents that are waiting-. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Christ, Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: None-. Motion for sending TA 86-03 to Council without a recommendation fails. M/S: Kasolas, Dickson - That the public hearing on TA 86-03 be reopened. Discussion on motion Commissioner Christ spoke against the motion, noting that he felt it was an injustice to the residents on Alice Ave. and the people in the community. The concerns should have all been stated by now, as this is the sixth time the matter has been before the Commission. If further changes are proposed, the matter will have to go back to the residents again. Commissioner Olszewski felt that Commissioner Christ's point was well-taken. The residents are tired of coming out because there is no progress being made. Commissioner Olszewski felt that the issue was at an impasse. Commissioner Dickson noted that he would like Staff to look into making modifications in the district to be acted on by the Planning Commission in the same manner as minor modifications to the Planning Development Permits, thereby eliminating one level that people will have to go through. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Dickson, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Christ ABSENT: Commissioners: None Motion to reopen public hearing on TA 86-03 carries. Public hearing is reopened. Mrs. Barbara Conant, 701 Sweetbrier Dr. (speaking as "a private citizen with no prejudice as a commissioner"), stated that she was disappointed in the actions of the Commission this evening. Mrs. Conant noted that Staff has addressed concerns expressed by the Commission, and met with residents to clarify the proposed amendment and district-. She expressed a concern that the Planning Commission has not done it's homework. -15- M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the public hearing on TA 86-03 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 1987, with a recommendation to Staff to redraft the text amendment to treat the spcial development permit as a minor modification type of change with the Planning Director having authority to approve changes at a certain valuation; and, include in the historic zoning .district that those petitions with a 2/3 majority of property owners requesting the district proceed to City Council for possible designation. Discussion on motion Commissioner Olszewski asked if Commissioner Dickson's suggestion regarding the method of handling :applications for altering structures were to be made a part of the proposed. amendment, could the amendment be accepted this evening. Mr. seligmann responded that Commissioner Dickson's suggestion could be discussed and accepted this evening] however, Commissioner Kasolas' inclusion regarding the why a district is proposed could not be accepted this evening. ~- Commissioner Christ stated that he is against the motion, noting that several of the items in the amendment were a result of concerns expressed by residents, and added in an effort to make the procedure easier for property owners. Commissioner Christ felt that if further amendments were being proposed, the residents should be given another opportunity to meet with Staff. Vote on motion AYES: Commissionerss Kasolas, Stanton, Olszewski, Dickson,. Perrine NOES: Commissioners: Christ ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Motion to continue TA 86-03 to Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 1987 carried. ZC 86-10 Continued public hearing to consider a HPB 86-01 City-initiated zone change from R-1 City-initiated (Single-Family Residential) and/or P-O (Professional Office) to R-1-H and/or P-O-H (Historical Overlay Zoning District) for the Alice Avenue Neighborhood (all properties having frontage on Alice Ave•.s 20 through 235 Alice Ave., 235 S. First St., 189 & 190 S•. Third St•., 2200 S. Winchester Blvd.). -16- Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That the public hearing on ZC 86-10 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 1987. Motion • carried unanimously (6-0-0). GP 87-01 Public hearing to consider a City- City-initiated initiated proposal to add an Air Quality Element to the General Planj or, to add Air Quality goals and policies to existing General Plan Elements. Principal Planner Phil Stafford reported that the staff has prepared a draft Air Quality Element. Copies of the draft were submitted to the committee appointed by the Commission (Commissioners Perrine and Olszewski), however they have not had an adequate amount of time to review the document. In addition, Staff will be submitting a copy of the draft to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for their input. For these reasons, Staff is recommending that this item be continued to the meeting of February 24, 1987. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against the item. M/S: Stanton, Dickson - That the public hearing on GP 87-01 be continued to the Planning Commisison meeting of February 24, 1987•. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). * * ,r MISCELLANEOUS TS 86-05 K-Prop. 86 Tentative Subdivision Map - Lands of K-Prop. 86 - 134 Shelley Ave. Planning Director Arthur Ree reported that this item is directly related to the application of Mr. Kamil Navai for a zone change (ZC 86-14) and approval of plans to allow the construction of 6 townhomes on property known as 134 Shelley Ave. The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZC 86-14 at its meeting of January 13, 1987 with a vote of 5-1-0 (Commissioner Dickson voting "no"). The City Council will consider the zone change at its meeting of February 3, 1987; Condition No. 18 of the recommended conditions of approval require the applicant to process and file a subdivision map. The applicant has since submitted a tentative map which would allow the development of 6 townhomes: The project will result in a density of 13 units per gross acre, which is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 units per gross acre)•. The map is consistent with the plans recommended by the Planning Commission. -17- M/S: Kasolas, Christ - That the Planning Commission find that this Tentative Subdivision Map is consistent with the General Plan and recommend that the City Council approve this map, subject to the attached conditions. Motion carried with a vote of 4-2-0, with Commissioners .Dickson and Stanton voting "no". MM 86-27 Continued application of Mr•. Adron Fulk Fulk, A. for approval of a modification to approved building usage from manufacturing/warehousing to automotive repair for a portion of an existing industrial building located on property known as 1436 Whiteoaks Rd. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District-. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Because of the sensitive nature of this request, the Site Committee felt that the matter should come before the Commission without a recommendation. Planning Director Ree noted that Staff's main concern is with the designation of.six interior parking spaces. If the Planning Commission finds this proposal acceptable, then Staff would recommend approval. Commissioner Kasolas. asked about the status of a previous condition requiring the exterior parking on this site to be maintained in a specific manner. Mr•. Kee stated that Staff is of the understanding that any previous agreements regarding this property would be applicable to the additionally requested automotive use. Mr. Adron Fulk, applicant, gave a brief background of the building, noting that it is extremely difficult to lease-the building for warehousing purposes and be competitive in the market-. Mr<. Fulk continued that he previously signed an agreement, and stipulates in his lease, that there will be no parking in the lot at night. This condition is monitored by Mr. Fulk, who maintains an office on the site-. Mr. Fulk added that the automotive uses he is attempting to lease to are exotic cars, such as Jaguar. M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission considers the designation of 6 interior parking spaces acceptable; and, that the Planning Commission adopt findings attached hereto and approve the applicant's request subject to conditions as indicated in the -18- Staff Report, dated January 27, 1987, with Condition #3 being changed to read "Approval of this building usage to be reviewed by the Planning Commission one year from Planning Commission approval to insure adequacy of parking facilities. Discussion on motion Commissioner Olszewski asked if the City could be held to this decision by future applicants. City Attorney Seligmann noted that each application is considered on it's own particular facts. Any difference in any future application could require different treatment. Vote on motion Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0)~. S 66-21 Request of Mr•. Tam Ly to modify site Ly, T. plan to eliminate an approved landscaping area in front of Anastasia's Fitness Center located on property known as 2931 S. Winchester blvd. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Christ noted that the applicant was not present at the Site Committee meeting. The Site Committee felt that, because of the parking circumstances on this site, perhaps the originally approved landscaping plan could be modified to help the parking situation; however, it is felt that total elimination of the landscaping is inappropriate; therefore, a continuance is being recommended-. Planner II Haley noted that the applicant was present earlier in the evening, and requested that the Planning commission make a decision on the matter this evening. Staff is recommending denial. Commissioner Rasolas stated that if the Site Committee is still of the opinion that the Planning Commission could help the applicant, he would support a continuance. Commissioner Olszewski asked about the applicant's alternatives should the Commission deny his request. Planning Director Kee indicated that the applicant has the right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. -19- M/S: Christ, Dickson - PD 84-06 Prometheus Development That this request be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 1987 in order that the applicant can present a revised the site plan modifying the landscaping. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0)•: Application of Mr: Todd Wright, on behalf of Prometheus Development Co., to consider revised plans for an approved office/hotel complex on property known as 900 E: Hamilton Ave: in a PD (Planned Development) zoning District: Commissioner Dickson stated that he was of the opinion that this application should be renoticed for public hearing as a change to the Planned Development Permit, rather than being considered this evening as a minor modification: Commissioner Dickson continued that the presented plans have changed significantly since the original plans were presented, particularly in the reduction of landscaping and changes in the street improvements. Planning Director Kee explained that these revised plans are presented as { a condition of approval of the Planned Development Permit. The landscaping in relation to Hamilton Ave-. has been reduced, however, landscaping on other areas of the site have been increased. The submitted plans show the circulation plan as required by the City, as well as incorporate conditions required under Ordinance 1560: City Attorney Seligmann determined that this application deals with the satisfying of conditions under Ordinance No: 1560, and is not considered as a change to the Planned Development Permit. Chairman Perrine determined that the item would be heard as presented on the agenda. M/S: Dickson, That this item be dealt with as a public hearing because of the substantial nature of the changes-. Motion died for lack of a second: The Commission recessed at 11:00 p.m-.f the meeting reconvened at 11:10 p.m. `-- -20- Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and , Architectural Review Committee. The applicant has agreed to meet the concerns expressed by Staff and other reviewing agencies. However, at this point, the Santa Clara Valley Water District would like to review the revised plans prior to making a committment~. Therefore, in order for this item to be heard by the Commission this evening, the Commission has before it this evening two conditions which read as follows: (1) Phase II and III of this project require the submittal of detailed elevations, site plans, and parking analysis to the Planning Department for approval of the Site and Architectural Review Committee and the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits for these portions of the project] and, (2) Applicant to submit revised plans of Phase I for the approval of the Site and Architectural Review Committee satisfying the requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the Campbell Parks & Recreation Commission, the Los Gatos Creek and Streamside Committee, and PG&E prior to issuance of a building permit-: Commissioner Christ continued that if these two conditions are acceptable to the Planning Commission, the Site and Architectural Review Committee would recommend approval of this application this evening. Mr•. Ree presented some background on this project, noting that the conditions of approval under Ordinance No•. 1560 require that the site plan clearly indicate the project's phasing; the traffic consideration on the site plan are mitigated in the EIR; and, Staff recommended the elimination - of parking spaces along Hamilton Ave. in order to provide additional landscaping at this prominent elevation. Staff has received comments from most of the reviewing jurisdictions; however, the requirements of the -~~ Santa Clara Valley Water District proved to be the most difficult. The Water District may have a problem with the access of the heavy equipment needed in the creek area; and, although Staff feels these problems can be resolved, they would like to have the solutions represented on the plans. Staff is, therefore, recommending a continuance to February 24, 1987. Commissioner Olszewski noted that resolving the Water District's problems may require revisions to the parking layout and landscaping. Commissioner Rasolas asked if Phase I included the bridge over the creek joining Campisi Way. Engineering Manager Helms responded that when this project was approved, there were a number of off-site improvements required - one of these was a bridge over the creek. The Planned Development Permit approval requires that all the required improvements be in place prior to occupancy of the buildings in Phase I: Commissioner Kasolas stated that he has no objections to continuing this matter, although he is .willing to spend the time necessary to expedite the issue in that this development represents a lot of jobs for the community. -21- ', Mr. Todd Wright, Prometheus Development, stated that he is asking for ', approval of the site plan subject to conditions indicated in the Staff __ Report and as indicated by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Mr•. Wright added that he has personally met with representatives from the Water District numerous times and is confident that the access problem can be resolved in a manner which will not create difficulty with the parking situation. Mr: Wright continued that the company would like to start construction at the beginning of this summer so that the building is closed in by winter: The architects need to start on the working drawings as soon as possible. These working drawings have been held up pending the approval of the site plan: Commissioner Christ noted that redlining of the presented plans would include the elimination of 9 parking spaces, an increase in the width of the bicycle path, and, an increase in the landscaping along Hamilton Ave: The applicant has agreed to meet these conditions] however, these changes need to be put on the plans, and the plans needs to be reviewed by the Water District. Commissioner Olszewski stated that he has every confidence that the various problems that remain can be solved to the satisfaction of all parties] however, in that the requirements of the Water District are still not known, it would seem prudent that the matter be continued for the. review of the full Commission-: This would enable the applicant to address all the issues discussed this evening and by reviewing jurisdictions by presenting a complete package-. Commissioner Dickson stated again that he thought the Commission was losing sight of the fact that this project is approved under a Planned Development Permit, which is an ordinance - therefore, the discussion is the changing of an ordinance-: Commissioner Dickson continued that, in his opinion, Condition #2 indicated by the Site Committee was out of order, and the Commission needs to see the revisions. Additionally, there has been no communication from Cal-Trans, and this input is also needed: Mr, Helms indicated that, at this point, Staff and the developer have worked with Cal-Trans at length, and Staff feels that those issues are fairly well resolved. Cal-Trans has asked for a final site plan, and Staff will be representing that the plan presented this evening is the final site plan, unless the Commission is not in agreement with this. M/S: Olszewski, Dickson- That PD 84-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 1987-. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0) -22- Staff Report Staff Report regarding Site and Planning Staff Architectural Review Committee: M/S: Dickson, Olszewski - That this matter be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 24, 1987, at Staff's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0)•. M/S: Kasolas, Dickson - Staff Report City Attorney That the Planning Commission Chairman appoint two Commissioners to a Review Committee to work with Staff in its review of this matter-. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0)•: Report from City Attorney regarding Brown Act-: City Attorney Seligmann referred to a Resolution of the City Council which presents guidelines for dealing with the changes in the Brown Act% Mr•. Seligmann noted that the Commission can agendize issues and it is up to the Commission what procedure is used. Commissioner Kasolas suggested that a committee be formed to set procedure on agendizing items and agenda preparation. Staff Report Report from Public Works Staff regarding Public Works traffic conditions in the City. Due to the lateness of the hour, this item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 1987. * * # Staff Report Planning Commission Planning Commission Chairman - Subcommittee Appointments - 1987: This item was noted and filed. OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSION Commissioner Dickson requested a report from Staff detailing Council action on 422 E•. Campbell Ave: (UP 86-14)~. ,r * : -23- ADJOIIRNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p•m-. APPROVED: Jay Perrine Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDEDs Linda A•. Dennis Recording Secretary FILE NO:: S 86-19 APPLICANT: PAISLEY, M: ADDRESS: 786 MCGLINCEY LN. P:C. MTG:s 1-27-8'7 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. The project is not well designed: 2. The parking provided does not meet the code requirements for proposed uses. 3. The project design infringes on neighboring properties. 4: Minimal landscaping is provided in conjunction with this project. ~y~f~j~ ,~-7 , ^ THE PLANNING COM1~SISSION We ob ect to the cone change proposal on GP 86-04 for the following reasons: 1. The area is presently consisting of single family dwellings and should remain sot 2. GP 86-04 is an unstable place to build, part of it is over an old cannery. dump. The east side of the Los Gatos Creek has already started to warsh away. All of it is too narrow, especially since a sidewalk should be required. Where would they park? In the residential area! 3• Abetter use of GP 86-04 would be to continue the Park along the .Loa Gatos Creek.. The property already has several old and beautiful trees, including the ones which give Poplar Ave. its name. 4. The whole area has 3 ezita, all to Campbell, Ave.. a. Poplar Ave. -The Loa Gatos Creek bridge blocks the exit view. ~ An island blocks the entrance from the west. ~_ b. Foot St. -For the most part it is private .and used by heavy equipment and trucks. The pavement is very bad and covered with dirt and piles of stored soil and bins of trash.. Roderick or Rodeck St. is not an official. street and is little more than ashort-cut through an construction yard. c. Page St. - Is very narrow, one lane when cars are parked. on both sides. Patrons of the shoe store and beauty shop add to the eon~estion in this area,especially When one wants to turn right onto Campbell Ave. from Page and someone ie turning onto Campbell left-from the shoe store parking lot. 197. Poplar Ave. Campbell ' ~. G'l~ ~ `~~~:~ ~d~ 6 JAN 2 31987 . ~= CITY OF CAMP6ELL PI.ANNINO pICPARTMENT MEMORANDUM o: Arthur A. From: ald C. CITY OF CAMPBELL Kee, Planning Director oats: ~nry , ~~~ 19 fly Wimberly, Director of Public Works Subject: Tentative Subdivision Map Lands of - Pro ~ ------APN X113-~ -~~ ------------------------------------ The following conditions of appro~{al a subdivision map submitted by ~ d ~ concerning the sub3ect tentative Installation of a sanitary sewerage system to serve all lots within the sub- division in conformance with the proposed plans of the County of Santa Clara Sanitation District No. 4. Sanitary sewerage service to be provided by said . District No. 4. Installation of a water distribution system to serve all lots within the sub- - division in conformance with the plans of the San Jose Water Works. Water service to be provided by said water company. Fire hydrants and appurte- nances shall be provided and installed at the locations specified by the Fire Chief, Fire Department, City of Campbell. Fire hydrant maintenance. - - Z , fees shall be paid to City at the rate of E195 per fire hydrant. Subdivider shall create or provide any public service easement and any other public utility and/or public service easements as may be necessary for the ~. installation of any and all public utilities and/or facilities. Compliance with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions of the Campbell ~. Municipal Code. S . Subdivider to pay Storm Drainage Area Fee. Subdivider to furnish copy of Preliminary Title Report. Subdivider shall (install street improvements and post surety to guaranty the work) - ~o , ), Dedicate additional right-of-way to widen Steel ~ey A~rtnu~ to ~. 3 0 feet from centerline. C.C.&R.'s to be approved by City Engineer to insure provisions for maintenance 01~ buildings and common area. Provide a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the City °1. Engineer. ~ b. Obtain an excavation permit and pay fees and deposit for all work in the public right of way. f t ~ ~o r Pair k S, .