Loading...
PC Min 07/08/1986PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES JULY 8, 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 Pi/S: Stanton, Olszewski - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 24, 1986 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee. noted that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. Chairman Kasolas noted a memorandum from the Acting City Attorney regarding Findings Required for Reducing Density of Proposed Pro3ect (attached hereto). ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 86-11 Continued application of Mr. Bob Dubcich Dubcich, B. for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a retail building on property known as 3495 S. Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The applicant has submitted revised plans which address all the concerns previously expressed, with the exception of the retention of one existing tree. Both the Staff and -2- the Architectural Advisor are impressed with the high quality design of this project. The Committee is therefore recommending approval at this -' time, with no redlining showing on the presented plans. M/S: Perrine, Stanton - That the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for S 86-11; and, that the Planning Commission adopt the findings attached hereto, approve S 86-11 subject to conditions (attached hereto) indicated in the Staff Report dated July 8, 1986. Discussion Commissioner Olszewski stated that he felt that the applicant disregarded the aesthetic quality of the sub3ect tree and its affect on the surrounding area, therefore, he would not be voting in favor of the motion. Roll Call Vote AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: Olszewski ABSENT: Commissioners: Fairbanks. 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. Mr. Kee noted that Staff is recommending a continuance in order that the applicant may submit revised plans. Chairman Kasolas asked Mr. Smith if he was in concurrence with the continuance. rir. Richard Smith responded, from the audience, that he was in agreement with the recommendation for continuance. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That S 86-12 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 1986 with the applicant's concurrence. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). -3- UP 86-09 Public hearing to consider the applica- Loher, J. tion of Ms. Joan Loher, on behalf of Raggedy Ann and Andy Pre-School and Day Care, for approval of a use permit to allow the establishment of a pre-school and day care on property known as 1291 Elam Ave. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning~District. Mr. Kee noted a letter (attached hereto), dated July 6, 1986, from the applicant. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Chairman Kasolas asked the applicant if she was in concurrence with a continuance. Ms. Loher responded from the audience that she was in agreement with the recommendation for continuance. M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the public hearing on UP 86-09 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 1986, with the applicant's concurrence. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). PD 86-05 Public hearing to consider the applica- Rodrigues, K. tion of Mr. Ken Rodrigues, A.I.A., 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. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending a continuance at the applicant's request. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Stanton, Christ - That the public hearing on PD 86-OS be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 1986. at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). -4- PD 86-02 Continued public hearing to consider Anderson, K. 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. Kee reported that a continuance is being recommended at the applicant's request. 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 PD 86-02 be continued to the Planning Commission _. meeting of July 22, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). PD 86-06 Public hearing to consider the applica- Anderson, K. tion of Mr. Kurt Anderson for approval - of a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of 14 townhomes on property known as 75 Union Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/High Density Residential) Zoning District. Comanissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Redlining on the presented plans relates to the marking of visitor parking, the addition of balconies, and a change in pavement materials for contrast. The Committee is recommending approval as redlined. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is also recommending approval, sub3ect to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. tor. Jerry Duncan, representing Andarch Associates, appeared before the Commission to answer any questions. Discussion ensued regarding the building heights; surrounding density; guest parking; provided parking vs. required parking under the code; and available on-street parking in the area. - -5- M/S: Stanton, Christ - That the public hearing on PD 86-06 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). M/S: Perrine, 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 that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve PD 86-06 subject to redlining of the presented 'plans and the conditions of approval as indicated in the Staff Report dated July 8, 1986. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT:. Commissioners: Fairbanks. S 86-13 Public hearing to consider the applica- Anderson, K. tion of Mr. Kurt Anderson, on behalf of Mr. Richard Hilovsky, for site and architectural approval for a house move-on to property known as 1765 Regina Way in an R-1-9 (Single Family Residential - 9,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The applicant has agreed to a 25' setback for the house; therefore, the Committee is recommending approval. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Christ, Perrine - That the public hearing on S 86-13 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). -6- M/S: Perrine, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings and adopt a Resolution approving S 86-13, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report dated July 8, 1986, and the condition that the house be set back 25' from the front property line. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Fairbanks. UP 86-08 Public hearing to consider the applica- Kamboj, 0. tion of Mr. Om Kamboj for a use permit to allow an off-sale beer and wine license in a mini-market on property known as 880 E. Campbell Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported on this application, noting that Staff is concerned with - the expansion of this retail operation to sell beer and wine in that the circulation arrangement of this project is not desirable for a retail use with short term parking; and, the orientation of this business space towards the adjacent residential uses to the south of this project is not a desirable interface of land uses. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Ms. Rathy Chavez, Alcoholic Beverage Control, appeared before the Commission to answer questions, noting that the applicant was issued a license after signing an affidavit stating that a use permit was not required by the City. Mr. Om Ramboj, applicant, stated that parking at this site is not a problem; there is perhaps one customer per hour; he is careful about selling beer to minors; and, he did not feel the use was wrong. Mrs. Frances Smith, 52 Michael Drive, manager for Pruneyard Apartments, spoke against the use permit. Additionally, she noted that the applicant has unauthorized signing (ie flags, flashing lights, and A-frame sign). Mr. Kamboj responded that the unauthorized signs will be removed as soon as possible. -7- Responding to a question from Commissioner Dickson regarding comments from the Police Department, Mr. Kee indicated that the Police Department verbally indicated they did not have any objections to this use. M/S: Olszewski, Perrine - That the public hearing on UP 86-08 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). M/S: Dickson, Perrine - Discussion That the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings and deny UP 86-08. Commissioner Olszewski stated his objection to the wording of Finding ~~1 in that the existing store is not a liquor store; and, he felt that there was nothing discussed to indicate that the existing situation will be made worse by the selling of beer and wine, under Finding ~2. Roll Call Vote AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: Olszewski ABSENT: Commissioners: Fairbanks. Chairman Kasolas explained the appeal process to the applicant. EIR 86-02 Continued public hearing to consider Chalmers, W. L. the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for a proposed industrial complex on property known as 700 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Indudtrial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that Staff has not had adequate time to review the submitted revisions to this Draft Report, therefore, a continuance is recommended, with the applicant's concurrence. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the public hearing on EIR 86-02 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 22, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). -8- ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 86-06 Continued application of Mr. W. L. Chalmers, W. L. Chalmers for approval of plans and _' elevations to allow the construction of 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 Committee is recommending a continuance in that consideration of the EIR is not completed. Commissioner Perrine noted that the building design has been changed since the original submittal, however, there is still much work to be done. Commissioner Olszewski added that the Committee is looking at fencing and circulation details on the new plans; the building height has been reduced; and, the applicant must still have some discussion with the Fire Department. Chairman Kasolas asked about the continued storage use on the residentially zoned portion of this site. He asked that Staff come back with a report for the next meeting. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That S 86-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 22, _ 1986. Motion carried unanimously ^ (6-0-1). S 85-08 Request of Mr. Jim Rubnitz for a Rubnitz, J. modification to an approved parking plan from a compact space to a motorcycle/bicycle space on property known as 1905 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval of the applicant's request. M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission approve the request of Mr. Rubnitz to convert an existing compact parking space to a motorcycle/bicycle parking space under S 86-08. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). -9- MM 86-16 Application of Mr. Richard Leese, on Tire & Wheel Designs behalf of Tire & Wheel Designs, for approval of a cargo storage container on property known as 2250 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. The applicant has indicated that they are seriously looking for off-site storage; therefore, the Committee is recommending approval, with the container to be removed by May 1, 1987. Brief discussion ensued regarding whether the removal date should be May 1, 1987 or six months from the date of approval. M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings; and, that the Planning Commission approve MM 86-16 subject to conditions indicated in the. Staff Report dated July 8, 1986 with the condition that the container be removed within 6 months from this date of approval. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). SA 86-24 Continued sign application of Anastasia's Anastasia's Fitness Center - 2931 S. Winchester Blvd. - C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee; and the Committee is recommending approval of the freestanding sign as redlined, and denial of the existing awning sign (which is 192 sq.ft.). Commissioner Perrine noted that the subject property is in the process of a code enforcement action regarding the landscaping; however, this is not at issue this evening. Mr. Tam Lee, .applicant, referred to his letter of May 9, 1986 (attached hereto), noting that his business dropped 20X because of the two new developments adjacent to his business because of lack of visibility. However, the addition of the awning sign has modernized the building's appearance as well as increasing his clientele. The awning with its lettering was erected professionally. Mr. Lee. requested that he be allowed to keep the awning sign, as well as the freestanding sign. M/S: Dickson, Perrine - That the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings and deny the awning sign; and,, that the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings and approve the freestanding sign, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report dated July 8, 1986. -10- Discussion Chairman Kasolas felt that the awning added to the building and the community. In addition, the applicant has given the Commission all the facts which can be used to allow an exception to the signing regulations. Chairman Kasolas suggested that approval be given for the awning for the life of the awning. Commissioner Christ concurred with the applicant regarding the unusual situation of being blocked off by the two adjacent buildings, and noted that he would be in favor of a larger than normal sign; however, the existing signing is almost four times more than allowable. Commissioner Dickson objected to the suggestion of approving the awning for it's life expectancy in that it is against the sign ordinance. Commissioner Olszewski agreed that the awning sign was bold and new, and perhaps a larger than normal sign is appropriate; however, the size of the lettering is more than allowable under the ordinance. Commissioner Perrine stated that he would be voting in favor of the motion. He could support a larger sign.; however, four times that allowable is too much. He suggested that the Site Committee work with the applicant to try to reduce the sign area on the awning. Roll Call Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas ABSENT: Commissioners: Fairbanks. Chairman Kasolas explained the appeal procedure to the applicant. SA 86-31 Sign application of Bank of America - Bank of America 125 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 Committee is recommending approval of one of the signs, to be placed on the north side of the building; and, denial of the proposed west elevation sign. Mr. Kee noted that Staff is in agreement with the Site Committee's recommendation. Commissioner Christ noted that, in a sense, there are two businesses going on at the site - an both should be allowed identification; and, in his opinion, there were already too many signs identifying the bank. --~. -11- M/S: Christ, Perrine - That the Planning Commission approve a "Versateller" sign on the north elevation of the Bank of America building; and, that the Planning Commission deny the requested signing for the west elevation of the building. Discussion Chairman Kasolas stated that he would be speaking against the motion; in that this approval would make a total of six signs on this site. He felt that approval would be inconsistent with the action just taken by the Commission on SA 86-24. Motion Withdrawn At this time, Commissioners Perrine and Christ withdrew the motion so that the signing representative could speak. Mr. George Heleric , representative signing contractor for Bank of America, noted that the existing signage was on-site prior to the current signing ordinance. Commissioner Olszewski commented that there may be plenty of signs at the bank, but they are not always visible if you are driving down that street. He felt that the signing would be helpful in letting people know there is something available at this location. It would get people out of their cars. in the downtown area. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission approve a "Versateller" sign on the north elevation of the Bank of America building; and, that the Planning Commission deny the requested signing for the west elevation of the building. Discussion Commissioner Dickson stated that he would be opposing the motion, in that the signing was excessive. He felt the "Versateller" signage could be incorporated into the existing signage; and, that the entire signing program for this site should be reviewed with this application. Chairman Kasolas stated that he would also be opposing the motion, in that it is his understanding that when the City Council took action to grandfather existing signs, there was not to be any additional signage without a review of the entire signing program on a site - bringing the signs into conformance with the new ordinance. He believed this application is inappropriate; and, to act upon it would be inconsistent in that the reasons are the same as those used to deny the previous application. w -12- Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Christ, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: Dickson, Stanton, Kasolas ABSENT: Commissioners: Fairbanks. Motion for approval of north elevation sign fails. M/S: Perrine, Dickson - That SA 86-31 be continued to the Planning; Commission meeting of July 22, 1986 in order that a full Commission be presented. Motion carried unanimously {6-0-1). Request Referral from City Council regarding Apple Computers request of Mr. Carlos Del Carpio, on behalf of Apple Computers, to use City-owned property at the southeast corner of Hamilton and Salmar Avenues for light recreational purposes. Mr. Kee reviewed the request, noting that Staff is of the opinion that in terms of land use, a small recreational area such as this one would be consistent with a development such as Apple Computers. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval. Discussion ensued regarding the use of the area being available to Campbell residents, as well as to Apple employees. Commissioner Olszewski indicated that Apple intends to put up the net only when it is going to be used, have portable table tops which will be set up only when in use, etc. However, the public can still use the area - although there will not be much there for them. Commissioner Perrine added that Apple is aware that people are going to use the site, and it is their assumption that their attorneys will work with the City Attorney for an agreement regarding the liability. Commissioner Dickson expressed a safety concern with the location of the fence in the badminton area - specifically, protection from traffic on Hamilton Ave. Commissioner Perrine responded that it is his understanding that fencing goes beyond the badminton area. He added that he is not sure about this idea, although he likes to see open space being used; therefore, he is only slightly in favor of trying this experiment. -13- M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the request of Apple Computers for a light recreational use on City-owned property, subject to Apple Computer entering into a legal agreement with the City covering liability, maintenance, and use of the area. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). Request Request of Mr. Joe Elek that a deter- Elek, J. urination be made that a nursery and garden center is an acceptable use in the C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Woodworth reported that Staff is of the opinion that a nursery and garden center may be an appropriate use on certain C-1-S parcels; therefore, the use permit process would be an appropriate means by which to regulate the use. Staff is also of the opinion that a nursery and garden center is similar in nature to many of the uses which are already _ permitted by use permit. Mr. Joe Elek, applicant, spoke in favor of this use in a C-1-S district; and, indicated that this request will be followed by an application for a use permit to allow such a use in his shopping center at San Tomas Aquino and Elam. M/S: Dickson, Perrine - That the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings and add a nursery and garden center as a use allowable in the C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District with a use permit. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). The Commission recessed at 9:28 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:46 p.m. Staff Report Staff Report outlining procedural steps California Environmental followed by City to comply with the Quality Act - EIR California Environmental Quality Act Review Process (CEQA) in the Environmental Impact Report process. Mr. Stafford reviewed the issue for the Commission, referring to the Staff Report dated July 8, 1986. -14- Discussion ensued regarding the difference between the Draft EIR and the Final EIR; and the relationship of revisions to the Draft and Final EIR. Commissioner Olszewski felt that- it has been demonstrated that there is a question regarding the Draft and Final EIR. He felt this could be cleared up by having a Draft EIR come through first; and, a Final EIR printed complete with all revisions, including audience questions/comments and responses. Commissioner Dickson stated that the existing process works, that the questions and answers are part of the minutes which are forwarded to the Council and become part of the Final EIR. Commissioner Perrine thought that different approaches might be appropriate in different situations. M/S: Dickson, Perrine - Staff Report That the Planning Commission note and file this report, with Commissioner Olszewski's comments.- Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). Oral presentation regarding policies of Redevelopment Agency for plan review. Commissioner Dickson again stated his serious reservation in considering projects under the public hearing process that have already been considered by the Redevelopment Agency, a decision-making body. Mr. Kee responded that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency is aware of these concerns and are taking steps to review an Interim Zoning District in the downtown area. Chairman Rasolas asked Mr. Kee for a report regarding the Redevelopment Agency's meeting last Monday evening. Mr. Kee indicated that it was a meeting at which the Agency gathered information, rather than relayed information. No conclusions were made; and, the next phase is to come back with alternatives. Commissioner Perrine added that several ideas were focused on -focused retail, mixed uses, entertainment. Additionally, he noted the lack of dissention with the group present, and that the process was exciting. Chairman Kasolas asked if there was any role that the Planning Commission could assist in, noting that he was wondering about transportation factors, traffic, areas addressed for redevelopment, and changes in zoning. -15- Mr. Kee responded that the Planning Commission's role would probably come down the line. Once the process takes place, there will be a presentation to the Commission. Pfr. Kee. noted that the City Manager's Office is acting as the coordinator for the Redevelopment. OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSION Commissioner Dickson referred to the memorandum from Acting City Attorney Seligmann regarding density, noting that this could be very serious. The Commission should look much closer at applications to see if they are in conformance with the General Plan and all its elements. Part of the review process looks at silhouettes of projects, and this many times has to do with density - especially if you are looking at Commercial next to Residential. Additionally, the issue brings up some questions regarding "legal" density, in that Campbell has ranges of density; is our Planned Development ordinance legal; and, is the Site and Architectural Review Committee legal. Mr. Seligmann indicated that this is before the Commission because it is an item that is just now before the Appellate Court. Commissioner Olszewski asked if it is required by law to have a published ` Final EIR. Mr. Seligmann responded that Campbell. is not the only City that operates under the existing process. The Final EIR doesn't have to be a published document - comments can be added to the Draft for the Final. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:27 p.m. APPROVED: George C. Kasolas Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary _' r 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 86-11 _ APPLICANT: Dubcich, B. ~ w L.i~ ~, ~, SITE ADDRESS: 3485 S. Bascom Ave. a P.C. MTG:~ ~iY24-~6 ' < . _ ~. _ The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with th`e Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the Laws of the State of California. `'" "v` ~ 1. Revised elevations and/or site plan to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee and/or the Planning Commission prior to application for a building permit. 2. Property. to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on the plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. 3. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural F.eview Committee and/or Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of wall to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of ," $5000 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of .parking areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file written. agreement to complete landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed with the Planning Department prior to application for a building permit. 6. Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PGSE utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the Planning Director. 7. Applicant to submit a letter to the Planning Department, satisfactory to the City Attorney, prior to application for building permit, limiting the use of the property as follows: 12,172 sq. ft. of retail use. 8. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 9. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. 10. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. 11. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of ___ the Campbell Municipal Code. i 12. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. CO2JDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 86-11 APPLICA2dT: DUBCICH, B. SITE ADDt.2SS: 3485 S. BASC021 AVE. ~_, ` PAGE 2 ~. 13. Sign application to be submitted in .accordance with provisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by Planning and Building Departments (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code). 14. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Cade stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. 15. Trash container(s) of a size. and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service .these containers. 16. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. ~. '^-~ 17. The applicant is hereby notified that the property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. All existing structures shall be secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 ~ 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. FIRE DEPARTi~4E?7T 18. Provide an automatic sprinkler system for all areas of the building. 19. All areas of the driveway shall be designated as afire lane - parking shall be prohibited except in parking spaces. BUILDING DEPARTtiENT 20. B2 structure - one hour walls at property line with no openings. PUBLIC ~.~ORKS DE'PART2iCA'T 21. Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees and post surety to relocate driveways, install sidewalk and any other work in the public right of way. r" 22. Provide three sets of on site grading .and drainage plans for review by the ~ Director of Public Works. ~f RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FILE N0: MM 86- 6 APPLICANT: TIRE ~ WHEEL DESIGNS SITE ADDRESS: 2250 S. WINCHESTER BLVD. P. C. MTG.: 7-8-86 1. The container does not adversely affect parking at the site. 2. The container does not impair the orderly and harmonious development of the neighborhood and is architecturally compatible with the main structure. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FILE N0: MM 86- 6 APPLICANT: TIRE & WHEEL DESIGNS SITE ADDRESS: 2250 S. WINCHESTER BLVD. P. C. MTG.: 7-8-86 1. Applicant to submit a letter to the Planning Department stating that the container will be removed from the property by June 1, 1987. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEARTMENT No comments. +~ RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FILE N0: SA 86-24 APPLICATION OF: ANASTASIA'S FITNESS CENTER SITE ADDRESS: 2931 S. WINCHESTER BLVD. AWNING SIGN +. .~' 1. The applicant has erected a sign of approximately 192 sq.ft. on an awning without obtaining a permit as required by Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code. . 2. The maximum size of a sign allowed under Chapter 21.68 is 50 sq.ft. unless approved by the Planning Commission as provided by Section 21.68.140 of the Campbell Municipal Code. 3. An existing free-standing sign of approximately 42 sq.ft. is located near the street and visible from both directions on Winchester Blvd. 4. The business would be adequately identified with the existing free-standing sign and a 50 sq.ft. sign on the awning as allowed by the code. FREESTANDING SIGN 1. The sign meets the size and height requirements of the sign code. • 2. The sign is architecturally compatible with the building. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FREESTANDING SIGN 1. Applicant to submit a revised plan, for the approval of the Planning Director, indicating enclosing the pole of the sign in a material to match the building. 2. Applicant to secure all necessary permits from the Building Department. • 1 . ~G.1~ e~ Raggedy Ann & Andy Pre-School Joan M. Loher, Director 1291 Elam Avenue Campbell, CA 95008 July 6, 1986 Members of the Planning Commission City of Campbell, California 95008 RE: UP 86-09 Dear Members: It is my intent to make as much information available as necessary for application UP 86-09. Therefore, after reading the Staff Report I offer the following explanations. 1. Since the parking is unacceptable as proposed a revised plan with landscaping has been submitted. 2. At the time we purchased the property this Spring it was, in a deteriorated condition. It is our plan to improve the site to create an attractive property. The plan includes replacement of the fencing around the entire site; wood or aluminium siding for the front and side of the _.. building; removal of the existing structure -at the rear of the lot; repainting of all the remaining structures; new windows for the structure; and a new front door. The interior of the structure will be rewired and replumbed. With the renovation of one of the bathrooms to allow for child size facilities. 3. As•stated in the Staff Report relative to the General Plan objective designating this property as a commercial use. My observation over the last several months of the shops in the San Tomas Shopping Center has shown that one-fourth to one-half of these shops are consistently vacant or in the process of transition. It is not clear to me why the City would want to create an additional situation of this sort at the subject UP 86-09 location. The driveway and delivery area for the shopping center (located to the North and West of the subject day care property) has an abandoned car parked on it with a big rubbish bin next to it. We would petition the proper authorities for removal of same. -1- Finally, we are anxious to meet City Standards to create a sterile, healthy, safe and creative environment for the chil placed in our care. As we have been doing for the years in our Lar e dren an asset to the g tFamily Day Care Grou Past thirteen (13) y of Campbell, as weplFase~toTthesownerslofbe Raggedy Ann & Andy Day Care and Pre-School Thank you for your consideration. "incerely, Joan M. Loher J ~' - 2- M E M O R A N D U M DATE: T0: Planning Director, Arthur Pee Planning Commission FROM: William R. Seligmann, Acting City Attorney RE: Findings Required for Reducing Density of Proposed Proiects DISCUSSION In light of the Planning Commissions apparently growing concern over the density of proposed projects, I feel you should be aware of certain constraints imposed by California Government ' Code Section 65539.5. Under this section, the City cannot force a developer to reduce density of a housing development project ---- (or disapprove it because of its density), if it complies with the applicable general plan and zoning, unless certain specific findings are made. The finding required by Section 65589.5 are as follows: (a) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety unless the project be developed at a lower density. (b) There is no feasible method to mitigate or avoid the adverse imp pursuant to subdivision (a), other than of the housing development project or the project upon the condition that it a lower density. Id. satisfactorily act identified the disapproval the approval of be developed at These findings, in turn, must be supported by "substantial evidence on the record." As a consequence of Section 65589.5, anytime the Planning Commission or City Council wishes to deny a residential project of legal density on the ground that the density is too ,__, high, it must be able to articulate facts demonstrating an unmit~.gateable threat to the public health or safety.