Loading...
PC Min 07/22/1986PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES JULY 22, 1986 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: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas; Planning Director A. A. Kee, Planner II Marty C. Woodworth, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, Acting City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Commissioner Fairbanks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Stanton, Christ - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1986 be approved, with the following correction: "UP 86-08 Mr. Om Kambo3, applicant, stated that .......; he is careful not to sell beer to minors; ..." Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee noted that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at~that time. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 86-12 Continued application of Mr. James E. Smith, J. Smith for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a building to be used for carpet and upholstery cleaning on property known as 3255 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. - Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Based on discussion, and the i concurrence of the applicant, the Site Committee is recommending a continuance to August 12, 1986. -2- M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That S 86-12 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). S 86-15 Application of Andarch Associates for Andarch Associates approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a warehouse/automotive repair building on property known as 180 & 198 Kennedy Ave. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Because of concerns expressed in the Staff Report, and with the applicant's consent, the Site Committee is recommending continuance of this item. M/S: Christ, Olszewski - PUBLIC HEARINGS PD 86-02 Anderson, K. That S 86-15 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). Continued public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Kurt Anderson for a Planned Development Permit and approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of 2 townhomes on property known as 274 Everett Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Woodworth reported that Staff is recommending a continuance, in that the applicant is in the process of revising the plans for this residential pro3ect. Chairman Kasolas 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 PD 86-02 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 1986, with the concurrence of the applicant. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). -3- PD 86-03 Continued public hearing to consider the Hester', L. application of Mr. Larry Hester for approval of a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow construction of an office/warehouse building on properties known as 40 b 48 Railway Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. Woodworth reported that this item has been continued from the meetings of June 10 and June 24, 1986 because the City Council is considering an Interim Zone for the Downtown Area. Attached is the June 24, 1986 Staff Report which explains the project. The proposed Interim Zoning Ordinance has been scheduled for the Council meeting of August 5, 1986; consequently, Staff would recommend that PD 86-03 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 1986: Chairman Kasolas asked if this application was affected by the possible interim zone in that it was in the process prior to the initiation of an interim zone. He noted that the filing of an interim zone should be immaterial to this application. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Larry Hester, applicant, noted his considerable investment in this project and asked when a decision might be made, in that he would like to proceed as soon as possible. Chairman Kasolas stated that he was of the understanding that without the concurrence of the applicant the item could not be continued this evening, and prolonged continuances without applicant's concurrence could result in an automatic approval. Mr. Woodworth explained that continuances have been recommended in order to receive some direction from the City Council as to what will be allowable in the downtown area; and, in terms of the current industrial land use, this type of development may be acceptable. Commissioner Perrine noted that Staff has also raised the concern that it was the feeling of the Redevelopment Agency that the lot immediately to the north of this site should be included with this in being developed. Commissioner Dickson indicated to the applicant that this application must still go before the City Council, and could be continued at that level. He noted that this application didn~t come before the Commission until after it was before the Redevelopment Agency, and the Agency recommended continuance. -4- Mr. Woodworth felt that Staff could assure the applicant of a recommendation for the next meeting. Mr. Hester explained that he was not pressing the issue, however, he was not asked for his agreement with a continuance this time. He noted that he wanted what was best for the City and for this street; and, he would agree to a continuance at this time. M/S: Christ, Perrine ~ That the public hearing on PD 86-03 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). ,y PD 86-05 Continued public hearing to consider the Rodrigues, K. application of Mr. Ken Rodrigues, AIA, for a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow construction of a retail building on property known as 890 W. Hamilton Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending ~ approval, with minor redlining indicating the continuation of window treatment around the east elevation. Mr. Woodworth noted that Staff is recommending approval, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report. Commissioner Olszewski added that the applicant has also agreed to provide landscaping which provides trees and vines to screen the doors on the south elevation. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. David Stark, LRS Associates, appeared to answer questions about the project. M/S: Dickson, Perrine - That the public hearing on PD 86-05 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). -5- M/S: Olszewski, Christ - 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 the attached findings and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve this project subject to the attached conditions, and minor redlining of presented plans which indicate the continuation of window treatment on the east elevation. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Rasolas NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Fairbanks. S 86-14 Public hearing to consider the Marahrens, H. application of Mr. Henning Marahrens for approval of a site and architectural application to allow the house move-on of a residence on property known as '1256 Audrey Ave. in an R-1-10 (Single Family Residential) Zoning~D~strict. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was. considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The applicant is in agreement with Staff's suggestions for the provision of a 25' frontyard setback, and the provision of a 6' setback along the easterly elevation. The Site Committee is recommending approval as redlined. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Christ, Stanton - That the public hearing on S 86-14 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings, and adopt a resolution approving S 86-14, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report dated July 22, 1986, and redlining of the presented plans indicating the provision of a 25' frontyard setback and the provision of a 6' setback along the easterly elevation. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: -6- AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Fairbanks. ZC 86-07 City-initiated public hearing to City-initiated consider an Interim Zoning Ordinance for the Downtown Area of the City of Campbell. Mr. Kee reported that one of the reasons that an Interim Zoning Ordinance is being considered is that such an ordinance does give the City additional control over the area covered by the ordinance. The California Government Code provides that a city may establish an interim zoning ordinance in order to prohibit uses which may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal which the City is considering or studying. Staff is recommending the adoption of an Interim Zoning Ordinance for two reasons. First, an Interim Ordinance will serve to put property owners and developers on notice that the area covered by the ordinance is the __ subject of a special review. Secondly, as provided for in the State Code, the City is given additional freedom in that the requirements for findings of fact are somewhat reduced; e.g. the City has the authority to deny a project which may be in conflict with a pending study. The current Planned Development or C-3-S Zoning Districts which cover the area require more specific findings of fact in a decision regarding a project. As proposed by the Staff, the Interim Zoning Ordinance would prohibit new development of commercial, industrial, or multi-family residential buildings. Special exceptions would provide for minor modifications costing less than $50,000 to existing structures, or for the maintenance or repair of existing buildings. New single family residential buildings could be constructed in the downtown area upon approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission and subsequent ratification of the use permit by the City Council. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the urgency items that the Commission is required to find; financial impact on the Redevelopment Agency and Redevelopment Area; application referral procedures; building permits time frames as applicable to interim zoning; the possiblity of use permits; the zoning in the specified area; projected completion dates for consultant's study; and, possible alternatives to an interim zone. The Commission recessed at 8:25 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. -7- Chairman Kasolas opened the public. hearing and invited anyone in the .audience to speak for or against. this item. Mr. Larry Hester, 400 Industrial Ave., asked if it would be possible to go forward with applications that were already in the process prior to an interim zone. Chairman Kasolas asked who was notified of this pending interim zone. Mr. Kee indicated that a notice was printed in the newspaper, and property owners within the loop street were notifed. Mr. Seligmann clarified that there is no requirement that the possible adoption of an interim zone be noticed. Additionally, there is no requirement that it be considered by the Planning Commission; or, that the consideration be a public hearing at the Council level. Commissioner Dickson asked if the current procedure under the PD Zoning District provides for a public hearing at the Planning Commission and City Council levels; and, could the Council refer any applications is the designated area to the Redevelopment Agency if they desired. Mr. Kee responded that Commissioner Dickson's interpretation is correct. However, the current procedure is for projects to be considered by the Redevelopment Agency prior to public hearing by the Planning Commission. One alternative might be that an application would come before the Commission, then on to the Council who could then refer it to the -- Redevelopment Agency should it desire to do so. Commissioner Dickson noted that he was bothered by an application. being considered by the Redevelopment Agency prior to a public hearing at the Commission level, and suggested that the Commission consider recommending that the original procedure be reinstated, thereby allowing for the Council's needs as well as allowing the Commission to consider the item under a public hearing prior to consideration by the Redevelopment Agency. Chairman Kasolas stated that another alternative might be for the Planning Commission to find, as a matter of policy, that applications within a specific. area be referred to the Redevelopment Agency for its comments--these comments would then be made available to the Commission at the time~of the public hearing. M/S: Dickson, Olszewski - That. the public hearing on ZC 86-07 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). M/S: Dickson, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission find that it does not see a clear and present reason for the adoption of an interim zone in the designated area at this time, in that the Commission is of the -8- belief that the existing PD (Planned Development) Zoning District provides for adequate review; however, the Commission recommends that if the City Council so wishes, the Council could establish a policy of either (1) giving the Commission-some policy guidelines for the Downtown Area as shown in Exhibit A (attached); or (2) that the City Council could refer applications within the designated area to the Redevelopment Agency prior to City Council action, rather than establishing an interim zone. Discussion Commissioner Christ spoke against the motion, noting that he felt it would be to the benefit of everyone in the Downtown Area who expects to develop. Chairman Kasolas stated that he was in favor of the motion, noting that there is a great deal of private development going on in the immediate area - development being completed with no governmental assistance. He continued that to place an interim zone on the downtown area might send a signal to developers that would not be economically beneficial. The PD -- zoning which is currently over the Downtown Area was placed there several years ago as a way of protecting the area and providing for adequate review and public hearings. Commissioner Christ noted that the discussion area. is not 3ust within the loop street; and, if the Commission takes the time now to come up with something that will benefit everyone, development. will not be a piecemeal. He continued that although the entire area is zoned Planned Development, it includes many different land uses; and, the adoption of an interim zone would allow time to make sure the development can be properly planned. Roll Call Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: Christ ABSENT: Commissioners: Fairbanks. M/S: Dickson, Perrine - That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council take action to set a general policy before the Commission that any application within -9- the area shown in Exhibit A (attached hereto) (1) be referred to the Redevelopment Agency first; or (2) after the Planning Commission takes action, then the City Council can recommend that the Redevelopment Agency make comments, if the Council so desires. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Fairbanks. Discussion ensued regarding the Redevelopment Area, the area indicated in Exhibit A, and whether or not the study area incorporated the Gilman/Dillon area. Commissioner Stanton asked if the area could be extended to include the Gilman/Dillon area. Commissioner Perrine suggested that a recommendation be sent to the Redevelopment Agency that the Gilman/Dillon area be included in the consultant's study. Commissioner Olszewski agreed with Commissioner Stanton, noting that he felt that it was extremely important that the Gilman/Dillon area be included in the consultant's study area. Chairman Kasolas asked Staff to come back with an informational report from the consultant clarifying the study area(s) and their order of importance. EIR 86-02 Continued public hearing to consider the Chalmers, W. L. Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for a proposed industrial complex on property known as 700 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that the consultant has submitted a revised report which addresses concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and. also discusses revisions in the project design as originally submitted. It is the opinion of the Staff that the impacts discussed in the Draft EIR have been adequately identified. Consequently, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution certifying this Draft EIR as complete, pursuant to Section 15090 of the State of California EIR Guidelines. -10- Mr. Seligmann noted, for the record, that at this time there is a legal suit pending between Chalmers and the City; however, the suit does not, at present, name any of the individuals who are on the Commission. Therefore, a conflict of interest does not exist with the Planning Commission's consideration of this item. Chairman Rasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Gary Coates, representing Mr. Chalmers, concurred with Staff's recommended findings, and made himself available for questions. There was brief discussion regarding proposed traffic mitigation measures on Union Ave. Mr. Helms indicated that Staff is recommending the provision of a stacking lane at McGlincey and Union as part of the Site application. M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the public hearing on EIR 86-02 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - . Discussion on motion That the Planning Commission adopt the following findings: A. That the Draft EIR responded to all significant environmental impacts resulting from this project; and B. The proposed project with the recommended conditions of approval lessens the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR; and 2. That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution certifying this Draft EIR as complete, pursuant to Section 15090 of the State EIR Guidelines. Commissioner Dickson noted that he was discouraged that sketches were used in the document, specifically on pages 18/19; however, he felt that there had been enough discussion regarding the project's prospective to make a determination. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Fairbanks. -11- ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 86-06 Continued application of Mr. W. L. Chalmers, W. L. Chalmers for approval of plans and elevations to allow construction of 4 industrial buildings on property known as 700 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. ~ ' Commissioner Perrine reported that. this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Site Committee is recommending approval as redlined. Redlining includes a 6" curb near landscaping, rearrangement of mini-storage units, trash enclosure screening, and a pre-cast concrete wall on the easterly property line. Mr. Kee noted that the presented plans have been before the Site Committee twice previously, with considerable changes being made. The pre-cast concrete wall is a standard recommendation between mixed uses, and Staff would adhere to this recommendation. Chairman Kasolas asked if material storage or re-cycling was an allowable use in the M-1-S district. Mr. Kee responded that material storage or re-cycling is an allowable use in the M-1-S district. ' Chairman Kasolas noted that in the past, the Commission has approved mini-storage uses with a condition which prohibits the lease of the parking areas for storage of any kind, including vehicle storage. Mr. Kee indicated that this is a standard condition. Extensive discussion ensued regarding property line wall heights; perimeter landscaping; percentage of landscaping coverage; and, plant materials and survival chances. Mr. Gary Coates, representing the applicant, stated that they have no objection to Staff's recommendation for a pre-cast concrete wall - they would be amenable to whatever the Commission felt appropriate. Mr. Mike Lindstrom, architect, noted that the preliminary landscaping plans indicate redwood trees along the perimeter, and they have been assured that the trees will survive in the designated area. Commissioner Christ requested that information be solicited from the Landscape Advisor regarding the overall landscape plan, and. plant materials; and, that her comments be incorporated into the plans for approval. -12- Chairman Kasolas requested that a condition be instituted that the parking lot and driveway areas not be used fbr anything other than interim parking for customers, and that there be no storage of vehicles, containers, or recycling in the parking areas.. He continued that he thought the project has an insignificant amount of landscaping separating it from the adjacent properties, noting that there is 500'' along the perimeter with no landscaping whatsoever. Commissioner 0lszewski spoke in favor of increased landscaping for this project. Mr. Coates indicated that his client was anticipating a decision this evening,. and noted that the provided landscaping was consistent with other developments in the City. However, he understood the Commission's concerns, and requested specific parameters to address. Commissioner Olszewski proposed that landscaping be added to the entire perimeter, excluding ingress/egress, and that the landscaping plan, as presented, be approved by the Landscape Advisor (including her recommendations) and by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. M/ Perrine, That the Planning Commission approve S 86=06, with added conditions that the landscape plan be reviewed by the Landscape Advisor and approved by the { Site and Architectural Review Committee, and Planning Commission; and, that the parking lot area be used for temporary customer parking only at all times. Motion dies for lack of a second. M/S: Dickson, Olszewski - That S 86-06 be continued to the Planning commission meeting of August 12, 1986 in order that the applicant may submit a landscaping plan indicating landscaping around the entire perimeter of the site, and that documentation be ` prbvided attesting to the survivability of proposed plant materials (specifically in the areas ad3acent to walls). Discussion Commissioner Dickson felt that the suggested parking restrictions are addressed bq the site plan, which shows the areas for parking only. Commissioner Christ stated that he is speaking for the motion; and, requested Staff to refer the landscaping plan to the Landscape Advisor for review, with comments to come back to the Commission. -13- Vote on motion - AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Fairbanks. The Commissioner recessed at 10:20 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 10:40 p.m. MM 86-07 Continued application of Mr. Larry Von Von Klein, L. Klein for a modification to an existing Use Permit to allow an auto-related use in an area approved for retail use on property known as 2885 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reviewed this appeal, noting that Staff is recommending tha*_ the Planning Commission consider the information presented by the applicant and forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding this request. " Mr. Alexander Henson, representing Stevens Creek European, tenant in the subject building, reviewed the site and p~srpose of the request, noting that the parking situation has been improved because of a less intense use; the retail use is still in the corner section facing Winchester Blvd; and, that afire lane }.as been created at the direction of the Fire Department. After disr_ussion ensued regarding the on-site parking, Mr. Kee suggested tha*_ the item be continued, in order that Staff might come back with additional information regarding what was approved on the site, what is being requested, and what is existing. M/S: Dickson, Perrine - That MM 86-07 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). -14- MM 86-17 Application of Mr. Eng Hua Lim for a Lim, ~. modification to approved plans to allow the installation of pitch roofs in place of flat roofs on four 4-plexes located on property known as 82d, 838, 850 and 860 Sobrato Dr, in an R-2-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval as presented. M/S: Dickson, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings and approve MM 86-17, subject to the condition that the applicant secure all necessary building permits. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). PUBLIC HEARINGS TA 86-02 Public hearing to consider a City City-initiated initiated amendment to Chapter 21.68 of the Campbell Municipal Code entitled "Signs." Chairman Kasolas asked for clarification regarding political signs, noting that he thought some consideration should be given to individuals who are participating in both primary and general elections so that they would not have to incur the expenses of duplicating their signing. Commissioner Olszewski noted his direct ob3ection to Chairman Kasolas' request. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this amendment; and that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve TA 86-02 as indicated in Exhibit A (attached hereto). Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas ABSENT: Commissioners: Fairbanks. " -15- MISCELLANEOUS SA 86-31 Continued sign application of Bank of Bank of America America - 125 E. Campbell Ave. - PD (Planned 'Development/Commercial) Zoning District. M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That SA 86-31 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 1986 at the request of the applicant. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). SA 86-34 Sign application of the Gaslighter Gaslighter Theater - 400 E. Campbell Ave. - PD (Planned~Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Site Committee is recommending a continuance in order that the applicant might approach the City Council with alternatives. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That SA 86-34 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 26, 1986 at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). * ~ Informational Item Informational item from the City Attorney's office regarding noticing procedures. It was the consensus of the Commission that this item be noted and filed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m. APPROVED: George C. Kasolas Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis ,__ Recording Secretary RECOP'Il~IENDED FINDINGS FILE N0: MM 86-17 APPLICANT: LIM, E. SITE ADDRESS: 82-, 838, 850 ~ 860 SOBRATO DR. P. C. MTG.: 7-22-86 1. The pitch roofs will enhance the appearance of the four-plexes and the neighborhood. 2. The pitch roofs will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FILE N0: MM 86-17 APPLICANT: LIM, E. ' SITE ADDRESS: 82-, 838 , 850 ~ 860 SOBRATO DR. P. C. MTG.: 7-22-86 1. Obtain all necessary permits from the Building Department. BUILDING, FIRE, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS - No comments at this time.