Loading...
PC Min 05/13/1986PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES MAY 13, 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: Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas; Planning Director A. A. Ree, Principal Planner Phil Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Commissioners Dickson and Fairbanks. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 22, 1986, be approved as submitted. Motion carried with a vote of 4-0-2-1, with Commissioner Kasolas abstaining because of absence, and Commissioners Dickson and Fairbanks being absent. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee noted that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Ms. Tara Adams briefly reviewed the Capital Improvement Program budget for 1986-87 through 1990-91. Commissioner Perrine requested additional information regarding the public works improvements relating to traffic facilities. Mr. Helms responded to questions regarding Pollard, Hacienda, Burrows, San Tomas Aquino Rd., Railway, Hamilton and Winchester Aves. It was the consensus of the Commission that further information regarding these projects would be helpful to the Commission in making decisions regarding land use. Staff was asked to provide an informational report at a future meeting. -2- M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission find that the proposed Capital Improvement Program fot 1986-67 through 1990-91 is consistent with the General Plan of the City of Campbell. Motfon carried unanimously (5-0-2). : • ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 86-08 Application of Mr. Gary Johnson for Johnson, G. approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a warehouse/ industrial building on property known as 898 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 approval, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report, as well as minor redlining of the presented plans. Mr. Ree briefly reviewed the application, referring to the Staff Report dated May 13, 1986. Staff is recommending approval. Chairman Kasolas asked if the provided parking for this project would be adequate, noting that there seems to be a parking problem on McGlinceq Lane. The residential parking requirement is two spaces per unit; and, in industrial areas, only 1 space is required for each two or three employees--perhaps this is the wrong approach. Chairman Kasolas expressed his concern with the impact of new projects on the surrounding properties, relating to parking. Mr. Helms responded that Staff receives a number of complaints regarding this area because of a lack of on-street parking. Additionally, Staff receives a number of requests for red curbs due to sight-distance problems in the area. Commissioner Christ also expressed his concern with the parking situation in the subject area. However, he will support a motion for approval in that the project is only 1/2 space less than the code requires. He noted that his objection would be to the code requirement in the industrial areas. M/S: Olszewski, Perrine - That the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for S 86-08; and, that the Planning Commission adopt findings (attached hereto) and approve S 86-08, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report of May 13, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). * * e -3- PUBLIC HEARINGS PD 85-11 Continued public hearing to consider the Morelan, J. application of Mr. Jim Morelan, on behalf of Jovan Jovanovic, for approval of a Planned Development Permit; and plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of a building addition and a new office/auto related building on properties known as ' 75 Dillon Ave. and 40 6 48 Railway Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that the applicant is requesting a continuance. This item has been before the Commission four times, and Staff is recommending that it be removed from the agenda. If this item is continued, Staff would ask that the matter be resolved by the next meeting. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee was going to recommend denial without prejudice; however, this was before the request for a continuance from the applicant. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for PD 85-11; and, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny this application without prejudice in order that it may be removed from the agenda. Motion carried with the following roll call vote AYES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Dickson, Fairbanks * * e -4- UP 86-04 Public hearing to consider the Krupp, J. application of Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey Krupp for approval of a use permit and plans to allow the conversion of a garage to a hobby shop and storage room on property known as 174 Cherry Lane in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is willing to support Staff's recommendations, with some changes in the conditions to indicate the retention of the sink and cupboards; and, a change to Condition 4 indicating "after personal service". Mr. Kee indicated that Staff is in agreement with the changes as presented by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Greg Price, representing Mr. and Mrs. Krupp, asked that they be allowed to retain the sinkboard also, and that the water line be left open. The applicant is in agreement with conditions as indicated by the Site Committee. The agreement will be recorded once approved by the City Attorney, and will become part of the property's title. Mr. Price asked that any complaints regarding this property be disregarded from this -- point; and, he thanked the Commission for its patience. Chairman Kasolas asked if the applicant would be willing to pay reasonable attorney fees in the event that the agreement is violated by the property owner. Mr. Price stated that he would not be in favor of such an amendment. Mrs. Judy Webber, 161 Catalpa Ln., asked what the hobby shop will be used for, noting that ahe is concerned with noise. Chairman Kasolas noted that there are enforcement procedures to handle any nuisance created by the use of the hobby shop, irrespective of the hobby. Mr. Price stated that he did not think it proper for the Commission to discuss the applicant's hobby. Currently the structure is being used for storage. -5- i Mr. Frank Corral, 143 Cherry Ln., stated that he has been fighting the "hobby shop" business for over 20 years in his neighborhood. He felt that the regulations governing accessory structures are not enforceable and do not work. M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That the public hearing on UP 86-04 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt findings (attached hereto), and approve UP 86-04, subject to the following conditions: 1. The kitchen shall be removed from the converted garage. This includes removal of any stove, ovens, and refrigerator All gas lines to be capped. 2. Applicant to obtain a permit from the Building Department for the garage conversion and parapet wall and to complete all work. 3. Applicant to record an agreement on the property (satisfactory to the City Attorney) stating that the converted garage may not be used for living or sleeping purposes, may not be rented out, and that no kitchen or cooking facilities may be installed in it. It may be used as a hobby room or for the storage of items of the residents of the property. 4. Should the City have reason to believe that the converted garage is not being used as allowed by this use permit, the property owner shall allow inspection of the structure upon 48 hour notice after personal service, by the City. 5. Conditions 1, 2 and 3 to be satisfied within 90 days of Planning Commission approval of the use permit. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 6. The entire wall on the east side shall be of one hour construction, including the overhang. -6- Discussion of motion Discussion ensued regarding the addition of a condition to address payment of enforcement costs, should the property owner violate the conditions indicated in this use permit. Mr. Seligmann stated that the only way such a condition could be placed on the use permit would be with the applicant's concurrence. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the motion be withdrawn, and the public hearing be re-opened. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). Mr. Price noted that his concern regarding the attorney fees was more for future property owners than for the current owners, wherein future owners might be held responsible for an agreement which was made by current owners. Chairman Kasolas proposed that a condition be added which states "If the Planning Commission, after public hearing on possible infractions on UP 86-04, determined that violations of the use permit did exist, that the property owner be required to pay attorney fees and reasonable costs for abatement/enforcement actions. If the property owner is not in agreement with the alleged violations, the property owner may appeal to the Planning Commission or the City Council." Mr. Price stated that his client is in concurrence with added condition as stated by Chairman Kasolas. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the public hearing on UP 86-04 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt findings as attached hereto; and, that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving UP 86-04 subject to conditions as indicated above under the ' previous motion for approval, with the addition of the following condition: Should the holder of the use permit be found in violation of the conditions of said use permit, holder will be responsible for reasonable attorney fees and associated costs in the abatement thereof. This condition agreed to by applicant's representative, Mr. Gregory Price, during public hearing testimony on May 13, 1986. -7- Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Dickson, Fairbanks. * e e V 86-01 Continued public hearing to consider Krupp, J. the application of Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey Krupp for a 5-foot variance to the sideyard setback requirement to allow the construction of a carport on property known as 174 Cherry Ln. in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Kee stated that Staff is recommending that this application be removed from the agenda, in that UP 86-04 was approved. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Greg Price, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant wishes to withdraw this variance application. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That V 86-01 be removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). Mrs. Rosemary McClintock, 162 Cherry Ln., asked if the City requires a garage or carport.' Mr. Kee responded that a garage or carport is required by the City, unless an exception has been made by the granting of a use permit. Mrs. McCormick asked what the City defined as a hobby shop, noting that a hobby can be anything from rebuilding cars to raising animals. She felt that the hobby should be specifically defined. Additionally, Mrs. McCormick asked if there was a list available which specified nuisances. Mr. Seligmann responded that the City ordinances address what is not allowable, rather than what is allowable. There cannot be any use that is not normally reasonable in a residential area. As long as someone is not creating a nuisance, they have the right to privacy and the use of their property. Mrs. Judy Webber asked if the residential structure would be rented out separately for the hobby shop. Chairman Kasolas suggested that the property owners meet with the neighbors to discuss their concerns. -8- ZC 86-03 Pinn, A. Continued public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Alan Pinn for approval of a zone change from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); and approval of a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of 18 townhomes on property known as 1164-1176 Smith Ave. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending a continuance in order that the applicant might submit revised plans addressing design issues. Mr. Kee noted that Staff is in agreement with the Site Committee's recommendation. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Commissioner Christ asked if the discussion of the Site Committee included the addressing of the Smith Avenue frontage. He felt that landscaping might be used to gain a staggered effect of the units, rather than physically setting them back and losing some of the rear yards. Chairman .Kasolas noted his disagreement with setbacks allowing bedroom windows looking into each other. Mr. Pinn responded that the presented setbacks were determined to allow for parking and the maximum rear yard; the units do not have windows looking into each other because of the zero-lot-line; and, in order to stagger the units, some of the front setbacks would have to be changed from 25' to 22' or 27'. " M/S: Olszewski, Christ - TS 86-03 Pinn Bros. That ZC 86-03 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). Continued Tentative Subdivision Map - Lands of Pinn Bros. Construction - 1164, 1176 6 1180 Smith Ave. M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That TS 86-03 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). * e -9- PD 84-06 Public hearing to consider a Development Fleischli, T. Agreement for a previously approved office/hotel complex on property known as 920 E. Hamilton Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Ms. Marcia Kaplan, Housing and Community Development Coordinator, reviewed the Development Agreement for 920 E. Hamilton Ave., noting that the development schedule expires on June 18, 1986 if construction of Phase I does not commence by that time. The developer has agreed to fund relocation prior to actual approval of the development agreement so long as the City proceeds in good faith with the approval process for the development agreement. Commissioner Olszewski expressed his concern with inclusion ~2 "that no additional conditions be imposed on the developer at the time of processing a subdivision or parcel map." Ms. Kaplan explained that the City is not giving up its rights under the Subdivision Map Act. Mr. Seligmann noted that this agreement cannot supercede state law, and any future legislation would be underwritten by the agreement. Commissioner Olszewski stated that he was not comfortable with this. Mr. Kee noted that his understanding is that the City would retain the right to deny any subdivision that came before it. If the proposed subdivision was not in accord with the Subdivision Map Act and good City practice, the City could deny the subdivision map. Chairman Kasolas asked what would happen if the General Plan changes during the course of the development schedule. Mr. Kee responded that the ordinance is good for the length indicated in the agreement, which must be made consistent with the development schedule. The General Plan could change several times, but the agreement would still be in affect for the length of the agreement. Commissioner Olszewski again stated that he was not comfortable with making such a "deal". -10- Chairman Kasolas explained that the Planning Commission is making a recommendation only to the Council. Commissioner Olszewski indicated that he felt this agreement was unwise in that it eliminated some necessary planning tools. Ms. Kaplan responded that the City Attorney is of the opinion that adequate protection for the City is provided on page 9, paragraph 3. The City's main concern is that the project be completed as proposed, no matter who does the actual development. Mr. Kevin Duggan, City Manager, noted that concerns expressed by Commissioner Olszewski were also expressed by Staff, and discussed at length. Recently, the Council enacted a construction tax which cost the developer over $200,000; and, the developer is concerned about possible future taxes that will be added to the costs of the project, thereby jeopardizing the project's viability. Regarding the Subdivision Map Act issue, the developer realizes that during the subdivision process, additional conditions could be added to the project, and he wanted to "close the windows". On the other hand, if there are new factors under the Subdivision Map Act, the City is retaining the right to enact those laws and address the new issues. M/S: Perrine, Christ - M/S: Christ, Perrine - Discussion of Motion That the public hearing on PD 84-06 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). That the Planning Commission adopt findings (attached hereto); and that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the Development Agreement as proposed in the Staff Report dated May 13, 1986 (attached hereto). Commissioner Olszewski noted that he appreciated the City Manager's comment, and that he certainly agreed with #3 inclusion."that no new City fees or increases in existing City fees be imposed on this development"; however, he would be speaking against the item relating to inclusion ~2 because he felt the City should not be disarming itself in any capacity. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: Olszewski ABSENT: Commissioners: Dickson, Fairbanks -11- PD 84-06 Request of Mr. Thomas Fleischli for Fleischli, T. approval of an extension to the Development Schedule for PD 84-06, a proposed office and hotel complex to be located at 920 E. Hamilton Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee stated that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the applicant's request for an extension to the Development Agreement for PD 84-06, subject to all prior conditions of approval under Ordinance No. 1560, plus conditions as indicated in the Staff Report dated May 13, 1986. This action would make the Development Schedule consistent with the Development Agreement just recommended for adoption. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Perrine, Christ - M/S: Perrine, Christ - Discussion of Motion That the public hearing on PD 84-06, Development Schedule, be closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the applicant's request for an extension to the Development Agreement for PD 84-06, subject to all prior conditions of approval under Ordinance No. 1560, plus conditions as indicated in the Staff Report dated May 13, 1986. Responding to a question from Commissioner Olszewski, Mr. Seligmann indicated that the only commonality between the Development Agreement issue and this issue is the same development schedule. Commissioner Olszewski indicated that, this being the case, he is in favor of an extension to the development schedule. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Dickson, Fairbanks -12- PD 86-01 Public hearing to consider the applica- Kirk, S. lion of Mr. Sherrel Rirk for approval of a Planned Development Permit; and plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of an addition to an existing mini-storage facility on property known as 61 Dillon Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the ' Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is in concurrence with Staff's recommendation for a continuance. 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 PD 86-01 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 10, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). TA 86-01 Continued public hearing to consider a City-initiated City-initiated text amendment to revise the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Campbell. Chairman Kasolas noted that he would like to continue this item in order that a full Commission be present. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That TA 86-01 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1986 in order that a full Commission be present. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). e e -13- MISCELLANEOUS SA 86-17 Continued sign application of Sunflower Sunflower Nutrition Nutrition Center for property known as 2230 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 would like an opportunity to address the Commission. No recommendation is being made by the Site Committee. Mr. Kee reported that the applicant has subsequently met with Staff and has indicated that he would agree to bring the signing into conformance with the sign regulations, if the Planning Commission would approve the existing signing for a period of two years. If the Planning Commission chooses to approve the applicant's request for a two year period, Staff is recommending that the applicant submit an agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney which would provide for the removal of these signs within two years. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant's signing request is not justified as discussed in the previous Staff Comment Sheet. Chairman Kasolas noted that the Commission must make findings in accordance with Section 21.68.140 of the Municipal Code. He asked if this sign fits into this slot; is it difficult to locate this business; how are we handling everyone else on the street? Mr. Kee responded that the City is requiring conformance when signing is changed. Nr. Frank Clarizio, applicant, noted that See's Candy store blocks his business coming south. He would like to replace the sign at the television store; and, he would replace the subject sign in two years. M/S: Christ, Perrine - That the Planning Commission approve the requested wall sign; and that the Planning Commission deny the free-standing sign as presented. Discussion of Motion Commissioner Olszewski felt that there was a hardship on this business because of the setbacks on the See's building; and, he was in agreement that the free-standing sign should not be approved as presented, and that the wall sign be approved. Chairman Kasolas asked what changes had been made on the sign; and, if a change in the lettering sakes a difference. -14- Kr. Kee responded that the lettering and text of the sign had been changed; and, the change of lettering requires compliance under the signing ordinance. Vote on Motion Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). Mr. Kee explained the appeal procedure to Mr. Clarizio. Commissioner Christ noted that he was not against the free-standing sign, but rather against the sign as presented. MM 86-08 Continued application of Mr. Bruno Bicocca, B. Bicocca for a modification to an existing development to construct a flower stand in the parking area of a commercial center on property known as 75 N. San Tomas Aquino Rd. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. M/S: Perrine, Christ - That MM 86-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 27, 1986 at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). e e e R 86-04 Request of Mr. Joe Salvador for a rein- UP 84-19 statement of a previously approved use Salvador, J. permit to allow the construction of a parking lot and storage yard on property known as 238 and 246 Railway Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District. fir. Ree reviewed this application, noting that the applicant failed to satisfy the conditions within the 90 day period, consequently the use permit is now void. The applicant at this time is requesting a reinstatement. The property continues to be used in violation of the code at this time. Staff recommends approval of the reinstatement with the 90 day period to complete the project. If at the end of the 90 day period the applicant fails to complete the project yct continues to occupy the site, then the matter should be referred to the City Attorney for legal action. Also, Staff recommends that the 3 year expiration date of the use permit be changed to 2 years since it has been nearly a year since this use permit was first approved. Mr. Woodworth gave a brief history of the property, noting that it was a vacant lot that was paved without permits. The applicant is requesting a reinstatement in order to comply with the conditions of his use permit. -15- Chairman Kasolas noted that there doesn't deem to be anything getting done in this area, and it is ridiculous that there are citizens directing traffic on this street. He asked if any of the improvement would be completed if this reinstatement was approved. Mr. Kee responded that the applicant would need to install the required improvements. Mr. Helms noted that the City Council has directed Staff to initiate parking restrictions in this area by July 1, 1986. These restrictions would provide "No Parking" signs as indicated in the Staff Report, and would be enforced by the Police Department. Commissioner Perrine asked if any improvements have been provided under the previously approved plan; and, has there been any indication of the applicant's desire to fulfill the conditions. Mr. Seligmann responded that the applicant has deposited funds with the City for the construction of street improvements, and Staff has been instructed to begin construction; however, the applicant has not dedicated easements at this time. Commissioner Stanton noted the length of time this application has been in the process, with the violation still in existence. He asked what would - happen if the reinstatement vas denied. lir. Kee noted that there would be no improvement on the street, no dedication, and no use of the property. Staff would proceed with abatement of the use. Mr. Joe Salvador, applicant, explained that the improvements did not take place in a timely fashion because a problem with traffic on the street was realized. Then the Police Department became involved, which took additional time. Mr. Salvador continued that he then decided to relocate his business; however, once things were cleared up with the Police Department regarding the traffic, he decided to go back to his original plan (UP 84-19). He noted that he had letters supporting his delays. At this time, Mr. Salvador noted, he is planning to run a light retail/office use with all heavy equipment being removed from the sight. He felt that he could do the original plan in 90 days, except for the PGbE requirement since PG6E is about 16 weeks out in their time schedules. The street improvements are under the jurisdiction of Public Works. Mr. Salvador concluded that he could comply with his requirements within 90 days, which he felt was reasonable. Additionally, the parking restrictions deadline has been changed to August 1; and, there are only two years left for the approval of the use permit on the property. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission reinstate UP 84-19, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report, dated May 13, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-2). -16- Staff Report Staff report regarding restrooms and air 6 water at service stations. Mr. Woodworth briefly reviewed the restroom facility requirements on five of the service stations in the City. Chairman Kasolas stated that it was his understanding that the plans for the ARCO station showed restroom facilities open for public use, and he did not understand why this was changed. Mr. Woodworth noted that he reviewed the plans, which indicate that the restrooms are for employees only. Chairman Kasolas thought that when the station at Bascom b Hamilton was considered, it was a requirement that the restrooms remain open. Additionally, he thought that the restrooms would be available to the public at the Shell station on Hamilton/Salmar. Chairman Kasolas thought that the City should insist that the restrooms be available to the public. He asked Staff to further investigate the plans. OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMMISSION Chairman Kasolas noted a communications received from Mr. Phil Baker requesting volunteers to work at the Prune Festival. Chairman Kasolas requested a staff report analyzing the M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District, relative to parking ratios -- current and future. The Commission requested more in-depth information from Staff regarding the Capital Improvement Program schedule for street improvements -for informational purposes only. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:32 p.m. APPROVED: George C. Kasolas Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Ree Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 86-08 APPLICANT: JOHNSON, G. SITE ADDRESS: 898 MCGLINCEY LN. P.C. MTG. 5-13-86 The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the Laws of the State of California. - 1. Revised elevations and/or site plan indicating relocation of trash _ enclosures and color b material samples 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 anal fencing shall be maintained fn 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 b; the Site and Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission prior t~ issuance of a building permit. 4. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $3000 to insure landscaping,. fencing, and striping of parking areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file written agreement to complet landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas. Bond or agreement to be - filed with the Planning Department prior to application for a building permit. 5. 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: 350 sq. ft. office and 4,382 sq. ft. warehouse/industrial. ~- 6. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 7. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. 8. All parking and driveway arcas 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. 9. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. 10. 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. 11. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approv and permit issued by Planning and Building Departments (Section 21..68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code). CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 86-08 APPLICANT: JOANSON, G. ADDRESS: 866 MCGLINCEY LN. P.C. MTG.: 5-13-86 PAGE 2 12. Ordinance No. 782 .of the Campbell Municipal Code 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. 13. 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. 14. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. 15. 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~he property. Sect. 11.201 b 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. PUBLIC ~IORRS DEPARTMENT 16. Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees and post surety for all work as required by the City Engineer within the public right-of-way. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 17. B2-V.N. fire walls at P/L walls with no openings allowed. Roof to be fire retardant and walls at P/L to be protected along with underside of roof. RECOA4~NDED FINDIi. . FILE N0: SA 6- SITE ADDRESS: 2230 S. BASCOM AVE. APPLICANT: SUNFLOWER NUTRITION CENTER 1. The proposed wall sign of approximately 98 sq.ft. significantly exceeds the maximum sign area of SO sq.ft. provided in the Sign Ordinance. 2. The proposed freestanding sign height of 23 feet exceeds the 14 foot height specified in the sign regulations. 3. The proposed combined square footage of the three panels on the freestanding sign measures 60 sq.ft. which exceeds the maximum sign area of 50 sq.ft. indicated in the Sign Ordinance. 4. There is little architectural compatibility between the freestanding sign design and the building design. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Applicant to provide an agreement within 30 days of Planning Conanission approval, satisfactory to the city Attorney, to bring the signing at this location into conformance with the standards set forth in Section 21.68.090(4) within 2 years of Plaaning Commission approval. 2: Applicant to obtain any necessary building permits. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R 86-04 - APPLICANT: Salvador, J. SITE ADDRESS: 238 6 246 Railway Ave. P.C. MTG. 5-13-86 - The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the Laws of the State of California. 1. Revised site plan indicating. additional landscaping and fencing to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor 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 hose bibs to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Connnittee and/or Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing 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 ~ $1000.00 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas withi..~3 months of completion of construction; or (Z) 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. 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. 7. 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). 8. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code 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. 9. 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: R 86-04 APPLICANT: SALVADOR, J. ____ SITE ADDRESS: 238 b 246 RAILWAY AVE. P . C . I~fI'G .: 5-13-86 PAGE 2 _ 10. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 11. Process and file a parcel map to combine the two lots. 12. Provide a copy of the preliminary title report. 13. Pay storm. drainage area fee of $417.00. 14. Dedicate right of way to 30 feet from. centerline along Railway Ave. 15. In lieu of street improvements, applicant to enter into an agreement with the City specifying that the street improvements be coastructed at some time during the 2 year term of the Use Permit; that a cash deposit for the full amount of improvements be posted at the time of agreement with an "on-call" provision to secure construction costs at the time called for; and that recordation of the agreement on the deed be required in the event the property is sold at a future date. 16. Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees and deposit for .all work in the public right of way. 17. Driveway approach is to be a minimum of 25 feet wide and utility pole and fire hydrant are to be zelocated from the driveway approach area. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 18. Minimum 2" A.C. paving required over 95X compaction. Provide for in lot drainage. FIRE DEPARTMENT 19. Fire Department requirements will be based on the type of materials to be stored in the storage yard. Please specify. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 20. All conditions of approval to be satisfied and final clearance received within 90 days of City Council approval, or use permit shall be void. 21. Parking area not to be used for storage of materials or supplies. PLANNING COI~iISSION 22. Use permit shall expire 2 years from the date of City Council approval. Property shall be vacated at such time, unless approval to continue is Rranted.