Loading...
PC Min 04/08/1986PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES APRIL 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, Fairbanks, Kasolas; Planning Director A. A. Kee, Planner II Marty Woodworth, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, Acting City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Fairbanks, Christ - None. That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 25, 1986 be adopted with the following amendments: Page 1 - Chairman Kasolas noted that it was his understanding that it was the consensus of the Commission that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, with input from Commissioner Dickson, would arrive at some discussion topics on the high rise issue. Page 3, Para. 3 to read " Mr. Helms discussed existing traffic patterns; and, regarding the application before the Commission at this time, Staff has taken the position that prior approval has authorized construction within the subject floor space, with the present allowed use being more traffic intense than that of the proposed hotel;..." Motion to approve minutes, with above amendments, carried unanimously (7-0-0). -2- S 86-OS Application of Mr. K~artan Armann for Armann, K. approval of plans and elevations to allow an addition to an industrial building on property known as 661-667 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 redlining. Commissioner Christ asked if the applicant agreed to removing the pavement and installing landscaping as indicated in the Staff Report. Mr. Ree indicated that the applicant is in agreement. M/S: Perrine, Dickson - The the Planning Commission adopt the findings indicated in the Staff Report; and, that the Planning Commission approve S 86-05, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report, as well as redlining of the presented plans. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS City-initiated Public Hearing Public hearing to maximum height of constructed in the 75 feet. consider limiting the any building City of Campbell to Chairman Kasolas recommended that this public hearing be conducted in the following manner: Staff presentation; testimony of those who are in favor of high rise limitations; testimony of those who are not in favor of high rise limitations; comments from the Commissioners. He asked that Staff address issues 1,2,3,6 6 7 on the agenda distributed by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman with the packet. Mr. Kee responded regarding: (1) Encroachment - an EIR addressing the issues of neighborhood compatibility, height, bulk and appearance would be required with any application; at present, there is a Council policy which places limits on applications and there need not be a designated area; in terms of whether or not the enactment of a high rise limitation would present undue pressue on future Commissions and Councils, this could only be determined after one was enacted; and, neighborhood preservation encroachments would definitely be dealt with in an EIR. Mr. Kee continued regarding: (2) Aesthetic Appearances - A letter has been presented from the Architectural Advisor (attached hereto) which speaks to appearances, indicating the availability of open space and light, and greater setbacks, as well as more freedom of design and open space. -3- Mr. Helms responded to: (3) Traffic - Staff's position has been that the Circulation .Element of the General Plan as currentlq adopted by the City Council would provide satisfactory street access and circulation for the - commercial developed properties within the City if the development is similar to the majority of properties in the City, recognizing that there are still some additional streets to be constructed to complete the existing Circulation Element. The main issue is really the intensity of development on the site, not necessarily high or low rise, which generally relates directly to the square footage of the development; and, trip generations would figure in the impact on the system. Mr. Helms continued that Staff's record hay been clear in the review of any of the major transportation genezating developments that, although the Staff has recommended that the Council and the Commission require a traffic analysis in conjunction with the impact analysis of a project, that in most casP~ the traffic generated on the arterial streets is from traffic moving through the City. Most people think of Campbell's present traffic problems in terms of peak commute hours. Again, the bulk of congestion during those hours is a result of people. moving through our community--not necessarily due to people living in the City. Chairman Kasolas noted that it was the consensus of the Commission that issues 4 and 5 not be discussed at this 'point. Mr. Kee responded to: (6) Would high rise limitation be beneficial - Staff is of the opinion that this issue is a policy matter, and up to the City Council, with recommendation of the Planning Commission, establishing such. policy. A cost analysis might provide such information, however, Staff is not prepared to discuss cost analysis this evening. (7) Present zoning ordinances sufficient - Again, Staff is of the opinion that this is a policy matter. The existing ordinance certainly can control height and development. If it is the policy of the .City to establish a different policy, it is the function of the Planning Staff to carry out those policies. Commissioner Christ felt that two issues needed clarification for the public hearing. First, in reality, we are not really talking about the height of buildings, but rather the density. Secondly, under issue 2 regarding landscaping, Commissioner Christ felt that landscaping is independent of height. It should not be discussed that if you have something tall, you have more area to put in landscaping--this has not been the case in Campbell; the Prometheus development didn't have any less landscaping as six stories that it did at 11 stories. Commissioner Fairbanks asked what encouraged the Architectural Advisor to come forward with an opinion on this issue. His letter states that it is a land planning issue, and Commissioner Fairbanks did not see, in her mind, the Architectural Advisor recommending on a policy issue. Mr. Ree indicated that his opinion was requested by Staff, and the issue is being discussed at a public hearing. Commissioner Christ noted his opposition to the method of input from the public as initially stated by the Chairman. -4- Chairman Rasolas stated that he hoped to have the consensus of the majority of the Commission to allow ample time for both sides within a reasonable time frame, in that this is not a typical public hearing such as a zone change--but rather a public hearing to gather information. He asked that the debate be limited to 30-35 minutes per side. Chairman Rasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Mark Fries, 1110 Shady Dale Ave., spoke in favor of limiting high rise and in favor of putting the issue on the ballot. Mr. Ray Clarke, 325 April Way, requested that he be allowed to make his presentation after the people who are against limiting high rise in order to know what the business community is presenting. Mr. Clarke pointed out that this meeting was actually called to see if this issue should be put on the ballot. Chairman Kasolas asked Mr. Clarke to make his comments at this time, and if sufficient time remained following the other sides presentations, the Chair would allow for rebuttal. He assured Mr. Clarke that the Planning Commission wishes to gather as much information as possible. Mr. Clarke stated that he was speaking on behalf of residents opposed to high rises above 75 feet citing the following: Campbell is a bedroom community, not a place for high rise development; development should be consistent with the surrounding communities; it is imperative that the City Council initiate the issue on the ballot limiting height to 75 feet; San Jose limits it's high rises to the center of the City; Saratoga and Los Gatos have high rise limitations. Mr. Clark expressed concern with redevelopment of existing properties, as well as development of vacant land; without limitations, can foresee structures in the downtown area being above 75 feet; and, concern with excessive office space vacancy. He noted that the business community has a responsibility to develop in harmony with the quality of life in the community. Mr. Clarke concluded that the issue is too controversial for either the Planning Commission or the City Council to formulate a decision that is acceptable to both factions. Mr. Don Hebard, 205 Calado Ave., asked if the discussion was for or against high rise, or as to whether or not to put the issue on the ballot, in that he wished to speak to the issue of ballot--not high rise. Commissioner Dickson noted that this was a very important point. The approach the Commission has been taking is high rise or not--not ballot. Perhaps clarification is needed. The Planning Commission recessed for caucas at 8:15 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m. Chairman Rasolas responded to Mr. Hebard's question by reading the referral from the City Council, noting that it stipulates "to discuss the issue of high rise buildings in the City of Campbell." -5- Commissioner Fairbanks added that along with the referral from Council there was also information that the Council had indicated that recommendations received at the public hearing would be used in - consideration of placing the height limitation measure on the November ballot. Mr. Hebard indicated that he would rather speak on the ballot issue, a subject slightly different, in his opinion, from pro/con on high rise. Chairman Kasolas requested that the speaker adhere to the presented agenda. Mr. Hebard stepped down from the podium, at this time. Chairman Kasolas asked that speakers who are not in favoring of limiting high rise step forward at this time. Mrs. Barbara Campbell, 35 E1 Paseo, President of Paseo de Palomas, Inc., stated that she was speaking for herself at this time, and read a prepared statement (attached hereto) indicating that she was not in favor of limiting high rise. Mr. Dan Campos, Executive Vice-President, Campbell Chamber of Commerce, presented a resolution (attached hereto) as a position paper from the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Morris Stark, 346 E. Campbell Ave., spoke against height limitation from an architect's standpoint. He noted that he is not for unlimited high rise development, in that it has it's place and time. Mr. Stark presented exhibits comparing floor plans for 4 stories and 12 stories, with the exact same square footage, to show the difference in the amount of landscaping and open space obtainable. Mr. Bill Hedley, 346 E. Campbell Ave., added that, as architects, they work with communities that place restrictions arbitrarily on construction. He gave an example of eliminating a useful element of a structure simply to meet a rule, noting that the development should be looked at on a individual basis, rather than under blanket restrictions. Mr. Hedley continued that he felt the existing. ordinance in this City works; projects of this magnitude require EIR's; and these types of decision should be based on logic and merit of each project. Mr. Bruce Reid, 1509 Walnut Drive, spoke in favor of putting the issue on the ballot, noting that he felt the Pruneyard Towers is a blight on the City, and he would hate to see more of them. Mr. Myron Alexander, 294 California St., stated that if we have high rise limits, we are going to put a limit on growth and income. High rise may be a legitimate means of stimulating a community. Mr. Alexander continued that the existing system has. worked over the years, and he would like to see it maintained. He felt that an elected official should not jeopardize the community's future by placing limitations. On a personal vein, Mr. Alexander noted., he did not understand why this issue came up. He strongly felt that some councilmen have some kind of hidden agenda, and he could, perhaps, argue better if he knew what that agenda was. -6- Chairman Rasolas noted that it was his understanding that the limitation would include residential buildings as well as commercial developments. Mr. Lee Peterson, 1156 Audrey Ave., recommended that the issue go to the voters. He expressed a concern that that the ma3ority of those opposed to limitations are business interests who don't even live in Campbell. Mr. Peterson asked that the Commission nat vote against letting the people vote on the' issue. Mr. Charlie Cole, 1166 E1 Solyo Ave., did not agree with-the statement that the Pruneyard Towers take away from the City. He felt that they made a statement that Campbell has something going for it. Mr. Cole continued that San Jose has an airport, which is why they limit their high rises; he agreed that the traffic problems are caused by people cutting through the community; he noted that the new freeway is supposed to take 40Z of the traffic off Hwy. 17, which is something to look forward to; and, he felt it is silly to put one more law on the books to argue about. Mr. Fred Sahadi, 1901 S. Bascom Ave., felt that Mr. Cole's comments were very appropriate. He stated that he sees two separate and distinct issues - high rise or not, and ballot or not. The high rise or not is a proper issue to be addressed by the Planning Commission and Staff; the ballot issue appears to be a policy issue for the City Council. Mr. Sahadi noted that this City has a tremendous Staff, and to pass this issue off to the electorate when you have a paid professional staff seems to be imprudent. Mr. Sahadi spoke at length regarding the issue of high rise, noting that it is his belief that the subject would not be an issue if someone had not threatened a councilman; he did not agree with the policies being espoused by the people who put the issue on the ballot; the issue became clouded and backlashed, and was not decided on the issue of high rise but rather something that came through the process that could not be tolerated and as a result, the real fundamental issues related to high rises (balanced projects) did not come out. Mr. Sahadi felt that this public hearing should be viewed with this background in mind. He felt that some of the comments made by Barbara Campbell were fiscal issues, and this is a policy issue that technically belongs to the City Council. The propriety of high rise from a technical planning point of view vs. high rise blanket development in indiscriminate way? There is no reason to bind the future for years to come. Why not wait and let the system work in an orderly manner, making value judgements on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Sahadi continued that every building is a function of six considerations: location, location, location, light and air, light and air, and light and air. By taking a building that could otherwise be 12 stores and reducing it down, you have a building which provides light and air to very few people. This accounts for a large vacancy factor. The current trend towards underground parking allows for greater surface landscaping with high rises and a substantial increase in open space. An example is the HUD senior housing project which recommended that the _ building be raised higher than it's originally submitted 8-9 stories--the building is a credit to the community, and has been fully occupied since it opened. The EIR said raise it to provide light and air. -7- Mr. Sahadi added that by passing a ordinance limiting the building heights, you would eliminate an opportunity for projects like the senior housing project to be developed in the community, and the City is going to need the revenues to maintain the quality of life. M/S: Fairbanks, Olszewski - That the public hearing on the City-initiated hearing to consider limiting the maximum height of any building constructed with the City of Campbell to 75 feet be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Commissioner Olszewski asked Mr. Kee to describe some of the planning tools that are used in building regulations. Mr. Kee indicated that some of the tools used are the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), zoning ordinances, Site and Architectural Review, Planning Commission, City Council, and General Plan. Commissioner Fairbanks suggested that the Commission go forward on this item. She thanked Staff for it's report, noting that, as usual, Staff has made recommendations; however, in this particular case, she did not see Staff's recommendation as being in line with what the City Council has requested of the Planning Commission. The Council has not asked the Commission for a recommendation on this matter; therefore, she suggested that the Planning Commission has done its duty by holding this public. hearing and receiving input. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she would like to send the issue forward without taking any action. Cormnissioner Dickson asked Mr. Kee if the present zoning ordinance had height limitations. Mr. Kee responded that it did; however, the PD (Planned Development) Zoning District provides for modifications. Commissioner Dickson noted that he did not like being put on a side, in that he was on the Planning Commission to decide the best interests of the community. He continued that if the Commission goes on and recommends to the City Council that they put the issue on the ballot, he would be concerned that there would be a close vote. Commissioner Dickson added that he felt that the existing ordinances allowed the Commission to take action when a project is presented;. and, if the City is not responsive to the citizens, then the ballot is available. Forcing people to take side is not a healthy situation. No one has addressed the visual skyline decreasing--this should be looked at on an individual basis. Commissioner Dickson stated that he did not like controls, if there was an issue of public safety or health--then the Commission should look at them. Additionally, he expressed a concern about comments regarding business interests being non-Campbell residents, noting that he considers business interests a vital part of Campbell. -8- Commissioner Perrine commented that in putting aside the ballot issue -' (leaving it to the City Council), he noted that the only comments were regarding aesthetics; therefore, he would conclude that the existing ordinance are adequate from a planning prospective. Commissioner Christ stated that he felt there was intent from the Council for input as to whether or not this issue should be put on the ballot. There has been arguments against limitations citing economic impact. If anything, this would be a reason to bring the issue to the voters. An example would be when the City considered purchasing the high school for a community center--a mayor economic impact on the community. There has also been comments about the democratic system--isn't it the right of the voter also to have some say in what happens in his community? Commissioner Christ stated that he saw no reason not to support putting something on the ballot, especially if it is the decision of the City Council to do so. He continued that there have also been bad arguments on both sides. The traffic is a factor of density -- not height. Landscaping and light S air are factors of design--and non-issues. The issues before the Commission are really those of economics and aesthetics. Chairman Kasolas observed that the Planning Commission, on its own volition, took action to indicate to the City Council that it would like to have input on the issue of high rise, should the Council choose to call upon the Commission. The City Council has, in fact, done that. Chairman Kasolas thought that it is incumbent upon the Commission to make some kind _ of recommendation. In that two issues seem to be present -- high rise and ballot initiative, Chairman Kasolas suggested that each issue be taken individually. Commissioner Dickson felt that the Chairman had properly stated earlier that the Commission's charter is to take testimony. Commissioner Dickson continued that there is a current limitation on height, and he thought the Commission should forward the information on to the City Council; and, leave the decision on the ballot issue to the City Council. He added that he felt the minutes of this meeting being forwarded to the Council would be adequate to provide the information they desired. M/ Perrine, That the Planning Commission respects the right of the City Council to set policy regarding height; and, that the existing ordinance for planning procedures are adequate from the Planning Commission's prospective, and adequate to deal with height issues. Motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she would stand on dust sending information along to the Council. M/S: Dickson, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission, upon receiving public testimony, forward that testimony to the City Council for their information. -9- Discussion of motion Commissioner Olszewski noted that since there seems to be more concern _-- with density than high rise, this may be something the Council may wish to address at a later date. Furthermore, in regard to density, Commissioner Olszewski though that the General Plan is designed to provide optimum for the business and residential environment. The existing tools work, and there are provisions allowing for enhancement of projects which can provide some interesting benefits for our City. Commission Olszewski recommended that the Commission forward to the City Council information regarding looking at a particular area of the City where there are buildings at our height limitations, or near it, so we have an area where we have buildings of certain heights. Chairman Kasolas stated that he is opposed to the motion in that it woulr inappropriate to take this type of action, after requesting that r.ie issue be referred to the Commission. - Commissioner Olszewski asked for the wording of the referral on this issue. Mr. Kee read the referral and the City Council minutes from which the referral was prepared. Commission Stanton noted that the Commission has then complied with Council's request; anc', Staff, with its Report is recommending a little more. Vote on motion Motion fails with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Dickson, Stanton, Olszewski, Christ, None. Fairbanks Perrine, Kasolas M/ Stanton, That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City COuncil establish a policy allowing applications for proposed high rise developments in the areas of the City outlined in Exhibit A; and, that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council reaffirm its current policy limiting height (in areas other than shown in Exhibit A) to 6 stories or 75 feet by placing it in ordinance form. Motion fails for lack of a second. -10- Commissioner Perrine commented that although Staff did some work to outline an area which might be appropriate for high rise, he felt that this was an area which was not covered in this evening's discussion. He felt the subject needed further discussion, and was not in favor of the motion. M/S: Perrine, Dickson - That the Planning Commission, upon receiving public testimony, forward that testimony to the City Council; and, that the Planning Commission determines that existing ordinances and current planning procedures are adequate, from the Planning prospective, to deal with high rise applications throughout the City. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: Christ, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None. The Commission recessed at 9:45 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. PD 84-06 Continued public hearing to consider a Fleischli, T. Development Agreement for a previously approved office/hotel complex on property known as 920 E. Hamilton Ave. in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Christ, Fairbanks - That PD 84-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 22, 1986 at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -11- - ZC 86-01 Public hearing to consider the applica- Anderson, K. tion of Mr. Kurt Anderson for a zone change from R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development), and approval of a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of 5 townhomes on property known as 235 N. Third St. 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 concerns expressed by Staff and the Committee. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Fairbanks, Perrine - That ZC 86-01 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 22, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). A communications from Mr. Ken Phelps (attached hereto) was noted for the record, and it was requested that this letter be included in the Staff Report for the next meeting. MISCELLANEOUS SA 86-15 Continued sign application of Rolling Cal-Neon Sign Co. Hills Center for property known as 1415 Hacienda 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 as redlined. There was lengthy discussion regarding the revised plans which presented the changes made by the Stie and Architectural Review Committee, including the total square footage of the sign (64.125 sq.ft.; 19'3" in height). M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission adopt the findings as indicated in the Staff Report, and approve SA 86-15 as presented in the revised plans showing a total square footage of 64.125 with a height of 19'3". -12- Discussion of motion Commissioner Dickson stated that he is opposed to the motion in that he was not sure the figures were correct. Commissioner Christ spoke against the motion, in that changes have been made, with the addition of a roof element, which really make the sign 21 feet high. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Perrine, Stanton, Fairbanks, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: Dickson, Christ ABSENT: Commissioners: None. R 86-02 Request of Robert H. Lee Associates for UP 79-18 reinstatement of previously approved Lee Associates use permit allowing the remodeling of an existing service station on property known as 3035 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Woodworth reported on this request for reinstatement, noting that there have been no changes to the General Plan or Zoning in this area; consequently, Staff is recommending a one-year reinstatement, sub3ect to the previous conditions of approval. There was discussion regarding the restrooms remaining unlocked at all times during business hours; and, the location of air/water facilities. M/S: Fairbanks, Christ - That the Planning Commission extend the expiration date of this use permit for a one-year period, with the added condition that the restrooms shall remain open at all times during business hours. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). SA 86-02 Continued appeal of Planning Director's Play It Again Video ,denial of sign application for "Play It Again Video" on property known as 2091 S. Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. -13- Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending a continuance to April 22, 1986, in that Staff is of the understanding that a sign program is forthcoming. Mr. Jack Livingood, 2901 S. Bascom Ave., stated that he has engaged a sign company to provide plans, however, he has no control over when the plans will be ready. Mr. Livingood felt that his appearance before the Commission should be eliminated unless the forthcoming plans are denied by the Staff. He noted that he has been working with Mr. Kee toward a resolution of the problem. Mr. Kee indicated that if the sub3ect plans are along the line that has been discussed with the applicant, there may be no need for the issue to come before the Commission. Staff is recommending a continuance on the basis of information available at the time. the Staff Report was written; however, the Commission could also take action to remove this item from the agenda if it so desires. M/S: Christ, Fairbanks - That SA 86-02 be removed from the Planning Commission agenda at the applicant's request, based upon the premise that acceptable plans are forthcoming. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Commissioner Dickson expressed a concern with the illegal signing on the site, and felt that perhaps the item should be kept on the agenda to make sure it is taken care. of. MM 86-09 Request of Mr. Adron Fulk for a modifi- S 84-18 cation to previously approved building Fulk, A. usage, to permit additional auto repair, on property known as 1436 Whiteoaks Rd. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Both the applicant, and representatives from Cerrito's will be abide by the conditions indicated in the Staff Report. This item is being brought before the Commission without a recommendation. Mr. Adron Fulk appeared before the Commission to answer questions, and further explained that there will be no cars left out at night, and the property owner will police the property. Discussion ensued regarding the building's layout; sprinkling system; the ~- property owner's willingness to police the situation; the lease conditions; parking situation; and the type of automobiles sold and serviced at this location. -14- Commissioner Olszewski felt that the applicant is investing a significant amount of capital, and will, therefore, have every reason to abide by the conditions of his lease. He felt that the City will be protected from a negative impact on the area. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission approve the applicant's request, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report, .and with the addition of a condition that the property owner will submit an agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, stating that he will police the parking situation on the site. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). SA 86-06 Request of Mr. Fred Washington to modify Razzamatazz an approved sign plan for property known as 2188 S. Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Olszewski reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Discussion by the Committee included the number of words on the sign; a revised sign plan is presented on the board; and, the sign is coming before the Commission without a recommendation. Commissioner Fairbanks indicated she would like to see the issue continued, based on the fact that Staff has not had an opportunity to review the revised plans. Mr. Haley, Planner II, noted that the Site Committee had recommended that a portion of the sign base be changed to include the street address. The change in script on the sign eliminates the word "hair", now reading "Hair Studio - Skin S Nails. M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission approve the revised sign plan, SA 86-06, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report, and subject to redlining which includes the addition of the street number on the bottom of the sign. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -15- Staff Report Staff report regarding dunk cars on property known as 3303 S. Winchester in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District . It was the consensus of the Commission that the subject Staff Report be noted and filed. * ~ S 84-11 Continued appeal of the Planning UP 84-08 Director's decision denying the Lincoln Property Co. applicant's request to modify the approved building elevations to permit a patterned horizontal treatment in lieu of a colored granite veneer accent band on property known as 2105 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 Committee is recommending approval of a green painted stripe as an accent to the building. Mr. Ree reported that Staff is in agreement with the recommendation of the Site Committee. `~ M/S: Perrine, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission approve a modification to the approved building elevations allowing a green painted stripe as accent on the office building at 2105 S. Bascom Ave. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS ZC 86-02 Public hearing to consider a City- City-initiated initiated amendment to the Zoning Map to add the "S" (Special Zoning Area requiring Site and Architectural Approval) to the R-1 (Single Family Residential, R-D (Duplex), P-0 (Professional Office), CM-B (Controlled Manufacturing), and P-F (Public Facilities) Zoning Districts, and all properties so zoned. -16- Chairman Rasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Dickson, Christ - That the public hearing on ZC 86-02 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Dickson, 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 a resolution recommending that the City Council approve this project. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Fairbanks, Rasolas NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSION Chairman Rasolas asked Staff to review the plans for the ARCO service station at the corner of Campbell and Winchester, pertaining to restrooms; and, also asked Staff to report on the regulations governing the availability of service station restrooms and air/water facilities. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. APPROVED: George C. Rasolas Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Ree Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary RECOA4~NDED FINDINGS FILE N0: S 6-0 APPLICANT: ARMANN, K. SITE ADDRESS: 661-667 McGLINCEY LN. ' P.C. MTG: 4/8/86 1. The proposed addition matches the existing building. 2. The project meet the City of Campbell parking standards. 3. With the. additional landscaping required, the appearance of the property will be enhanced. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 8b-05 APPLICANT: ARMANN, R. SITE ADDRESS: 661-667 NfCGLINCBY LANE P.C. MTG. 4/8/86 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. 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. 2. 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 Review Committee and/or Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $3,000.00 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. 4. Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation _ of PGbE utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the Planning Director. 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: 900 sq.ft. of office use, and 7,100 sq.ft. of industrial/warehouse use. 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 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. 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 86-05 APPLICANT: ARMANN, K. SITE ADDRESS: 661-667 MCGLINCEY LANE ~ ~ PAGE 2. ~_ 11. 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. 12. 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). 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 16. Applicant to obtain excavation permit to remove and relocate existing driveway approach. 17. Applicant to submit grading and drainage plan for approval of the City Engineer. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 18. Applicant to resurface and restripe parking area. BUILDING DEPARTMENT No comments. FIRE DEPARTMENT No comments. ~~ MINEWEASER & ASSOCIATES Architecture, Interior Design and Planning 93 Devine Street, San Jose, CA 95110 (408) 947-1900 April 6, 1966 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMF'HELL .Rea Nigh rise buildings in Campbell Dear Commissioners: What is at issue here is whether to allow tall buildings or not to allow tall buildings. @ecause there is increasing - development pressure on the valuable land known as "Campbell", high rise buildings will continue to be proposed and some will cventually be built. But without a plan such as staff recommends in resolution one and two, this will continue to happen in a halter-skelter fashion that upsets the fabric of a neighborhood. For example, Wesley Manor will continue to upset the balance of its neighborhood until other tall buildings are built nearby. However, at this point in time, high rise buildings are more of a land planning issue than an architectural issue. Some of the architectural issues that arise when evaluating individual buildings or groups of buildings are: Styl e Massing end Form Color, texture and quality of materials Sunlight and Shadow Open space Flace of the pedestrian Neighborhood fabric Relation to ad,iacent and distant neighbors Relation to ad,iacent and distant land forms Hut these are issues that can and should be addressed. at the time of reviewing an individual development project. Thus, as your Architectural Advisor, I suggest reasonable recommendation of setting aside an buildings while restricting height elsewhere, positive step in preserving the orderly growth Sincerely, r / r `-- Crai g Mi neweaser, AIA that staff's very area for high rise be adopted as a of the city. CM: mf R E S O L U T I O N In consideration of the policy to limit the height of residential and commercial buildings in the City of Campbell and to submit this issue to the voters in November 1986, the Campbali Chamber of Commerce offers the following findings and resolutions. Whereas, Campbell's existing high-rise buildings have positively contri- buted to the business and senior citizen communities of our city. Whereas, Campbell's traffic problems are not caused by residential or commercial high-rise buildings. Commercial high-rise buildings are " less densely occupied than shorter office complexes of equal square footage. And most traffic congestion in the City of Campbell is the result of persons travelling through Campbell to get~to other areas outside of Campbell. - Whereas, a limit on commercial building height may adversely affect the City's tax base and thus affect the City's ability to fund community services in the future. Whereas, a limit on building height may cause changes in single-family residential zonings to accommodate future residential and commercial growth. Whereas, a limit on building height would cause less surface area of a lot to be used for landscaping and beautification, thereby adversely affecting the appearance of our city. And whereas, the decision to place such a policy question before the voters is one with merits on both sides of the issue. Be it resolved, that the Chamber of Commerce opposes any limitation on building heights in the City of Campbell. ..And be it further resolved, the Campbell Chamber of Commerce has a neutral position on referring this question of building height limitations to the voters. The Executive Committee of the Board of Directors of the Campbell Chamber of Commerce. by a ur-animous vote on April 3, 1986, authorizes the Chamber's officers and members to appropriately communicate the Chamber's findings and resolutions to the officials of the City of Campbell and to the public. Approved: Apri I 3, 1986 Executive C/o~mmittee Attested: ~Gr~~ZGQ~ ~~y j~~ ---- Oanie{ Campos Executive Vice-President s ~.. _ +..., i_+ n .... ~ ~i t t is ... ._.. .., f„ y.. ~.. a _..... _. ... ._ .. ,/~~ ... _, . ,_. ,..., , _, r..~•. ,.! ,1 f ~~ ~; 'l I ~+ <::+. 1 ::.; , I ... .,..... i..., i J Y - 't L J 7 Cj1 _ .... _ ., t.:::+ 17 a ~.! i_.._.. ,::! ,..! ;:.':. ~. tic ~ ' e3 4 t:r. t.! ~, .: ci. n i H : I";, .. .: {_: %-(. J t~i ( ) ~~, '~'s'L! : ~ +. t ` *'/ v i~ ` ~.. _ .._ i ... , i ~.- ~. T. .. ~. }: ;_ _ . e ::.'. . ,._ .,.._, k t ., -... i 1 ri'} 5 'r: r ;: +.. C i 1 1 ~' C ~. , 't' {. _, - .. <.a i i C., iw~;~ ., .. ..{ L~ f C, I I Cc:r.{ ). Yi'::f i- (:~ is {:; 1 ~ t iii ~ „ _' : , y _...L i'ii_ t... . _. ...t _.: ea ,. 'i i--~' i-I I , 'Y1 ~~ .. _ i..... 1 ..... { ._.._ i , r ~ _ w. }. - ~ .. n , : ~ +_ ~ 1"i C+ ~; ~.? E: +~ ). i...{ t: Ci ~ i ,;;:, r:; Lt's ' i ). C ). 4:' ti 1 j; t~ la sL(}:;C;c,;_.~: t~l°i~` cc+~j: ~!f tt~c =~~,i-,: itri`~~: F',~:p~c:tt:t~l k~~~ ti~'i~ ~_i'ti~.F~i-i~=~. I t i=_ » r t? t' y it i c-i ~: ct ~? c? ~. r_i. ~ 'i C' t~ C+ ~ C. C.7 R fTi+:? i°' t ' 1 ! i ('~ '• j, - ~~i 14. C+t.,! ct +_I N,;! I Il +_: _a .~_, '~. <? {~ .} ~.i ..~ _ ~.l I ~~ k'i - - .. ... ,':. F_-:~t.!ii`+iTtlC,~+y) 7 G] .. .ry~ C [ t t . ~. .... V 'r ). c(kJ 1 ~ c=t i ' E ~': ~i C? Ci E:? ~ n ~) c:l { +.-+ c? - _: _. - ~~~ t i i n ',..i ~ ~:' -` , .... ' .... ~ ,: ~ ,~•,.t i i t { y v 4t I ~ ,. J. ti' 4^,- S, tr l_t }:; i::.. '}: l { { i! , 'rJ k'i ;l [:_ k'{ k'1,-t'J e C+ l~ ci i"' t C:i I i' r , 1 y n 1::. /tr .4 _: }.: i'fiL] c'ti i Fes`, t t_,;'i•_:. 1 ~`L•: +_. l.: 11 t 1 I i t.: ! (_, j. C:I. 3. ~ ~ t.:i. ~'~ ~_' n . ,...~ ~.:.. 11"i ITi'' C+}:? 1 S-"I 1 C+1 1 p t~l?fcl I .} C'C+fTlfTl~'!" (_1 %t I 1.. [-t iii ~! j__tt.y~ricl I ~,ri 1i"iC_"ILIC}1Yit::} _: i t7 c~ 7 I ct ~:3 cl. 1" ~ iTi C? i"i t~ g C C+ it Cj C+ t i l 1 i"'i 1 Lt f Ti Fl l~ C+ ~] E' C: ~,: ~z , L1 ~ Ll c=t I ~. ` C~ C, •t ~-f ~, L': C+ 1"i ~ E"~ : ~: 1 (:+ i-I r~ Y_! i~ t: i'_ ci'f ~ ). C= ~`! 1 C+ k_1 1 4? iT'i =; ~ Lti k'7 1 i t:.< jr„_! 1"' C F? i-' [, E (~ t =. [, c, ~~ i' C? ~'i ~. ES tTi S „ I 'I"1 c.~ `v` `' i_ 'y 1 cl i +~ E.? ~) I ,=? 1`t . i f? Ci ~! i Q ~ [: C: '}; n f: fi E'. i'" t? '1 =. =- ~ i'i C+ L.t C,~ !-'I Rc C:i ~ 'i (.' `j' 1)'"iVr,I1i(w+~1 ~+:+ (Ti~tk;E.+ ~7C!~_:ittlc~ ~'!,~ti-6~:i't~t~] 7 ~ ~ t ti _ -> C? .. l_t t~ 1 C! i-1 Sag S t: i"' ~' E?'t et'i 1 ~ LA ~• ]. 1. 1 t "y'' 1-L."v'1=:.1C.+ii.n fti~ r:?ii F?;.;cl{T',y.;].L? },li`clC.+i"t h~i4`~n 1G~ c? R'iL?Ez'~ ~£?tt%JE~'E„~l1 C.rliii t'?-~ F.t c.I I rti`IC:~ FtisS'_(::CiiTi fi'•%«'~'i'iLt4~~Sn Tk'i(? r_?i°~s~-i ]. 1'E?Ct"';-)~} ly ~e'.tLti-citE'C1 4v 7. -k:kl Sril.=;1 ~. CC+iiiTi~~E'].C:cZI'"'i-~•~:L+.~t:i"i'ti:~I ~'ti"'CiaEi{::~~=.q E'c~Cf} Cif 4dk'1).C~") !%rc'~~ rl.~:+j.32"C?`v~{_i I __. S. i-i ci i= ~, E~ r7 ~1 t~'i'i t l •~ +w+ f t t ~ ~ ci t k-{ e ~ - : ~ , a r~ ~ ri r_, r i Fa Cif 4v kl i C k"i s E: ~~ rri t c+ h a' :> C~ F i"i ~ l" ~i t ~ ci t i-i i~ f t. ~. i~::~ ~ t Ci i- ~: ci c.I U ~ i i rt i-i r=s `.: r« . ~. .`-_~t.iC:k-t tic Y1 C+i'C~].l-l~t)'lCf; Sf?l_1CI~ cs VE_i y C~~`~ii13.t,P mE?=£~cigE CiLi~ ~r`, t:k'lE " ~vc+ i- l t~ " : C a fTi p ~+~.t I 1 i. ~ n ~ i t~ i i ~ t: ~ ~ e: ~ t E: ci i r-i i~ ~:; ~Y` c` 1. C+ ~! m c~ ri t . 4J ~',1. 7. ~ I 't;hirik: L~_;ai}_tk?~_].1 r.1-iciLtld h~ It`•il"ER~~"TED ii-~ ii~ec~s a~icl ii'"{ ~!ot~'iitial. n T f i t~:? ~i i-' t+ c; t= i' i t: Fk i"' Ci C". E? :'w 5 ~ ). i i 1 i i j% C+ ~+ 1 i"i 1 C:+ 1"1 9 ). ~. ,:-'t C! C, ['! C,'~ Ct 1`i E: „ If c t 1 I •~: 1 1"i t Ct it ~r-F tht~` r_'her_~}::s ~;i°it:.1 balan~F==s c+f (='I~~i7i~ir-r+~ (/c'+iiimi_~~ic+~-1!Cit'r C'•C+lJ.il(_'.':. 7. i-F?"v 3.+-:HJLi; n ~.! {'in,'{ '[::E`;-~ _ , . _. ~_. t-' I_.+';J 'k: ~-1 tc; ~: t t_~ C+'~ E _.._r 7. _i i I =. d. El : ; Fi :_. ~ '~:= 1 .:: C:' fl'f '`•1'. ~Lli_ft c{'!"i Cti'Cj11'lr_?i")iE? 3.S ct "i,t~+~.1-fiL!'f" I~ C,~~''ti i:)E'?r~r-i ITii1'•1t=,'-' l .c. { L { , ;C.. tii C't -: iii -~~~' i-~t:~~,;~ r r~ j- ,.a r t+i1 c _..... i... ...._ . ' ~ ..... _ ...r _. .. _. f .... ., r t. ..... ..I , i._ ::> a fCi (5"..~ ! i 1 i n_.! I1_ _ Vi ). (.~ F' (i ! ct ~ C:+ i ]. k `y t,~ (_! Ll .} IJ C r•t y` f_' 1 ' V`.! t: t" i f 1 { Ci ... .._. {. {..! ~. =,. C: ti ~ ~~ c: r ~ i cry r! r._ ,..t t ; ). t i+ ~+ 'r %~. j.. ~~ ;t, C_' _. }.. i~ r. d _. _. _ _ ~ ~ ( ! .. - { _: ... _. }. C.+ .~{ ._. t~ V'. 1 ~. ~. 1 i c' -v' i ~t ~~ ~_} (.? i f- C• ; r=, i _. ,. a ._.. . 1... ..v. _i ..... ..... .... .'.. ._ 5. { ''a,_lCll cxfl t.+i hl .I.!:r.:'+"i i_. Ea -' °' __-~' 1_ _ _ •-+ l,iE_'~_. :_r_?~,+_i _.. ~ii~a a. {it`. '-/.~°~t ,~': t: t`,r j_~'..IC ~j Lt'p: •i ._. ._ ~ _ _ .... , ._.._ .c t ... ... ... .. ., t . t .. L. ;- Y ~ i. _• '; + a :: .:L s... !:: -..3 , .: _:. _. 1 .:.~.~ li_. .. a ~ ,., -: ~ .',_, ,'~ thi Cc? ri Lt':<'}; 3 ..... - cii~ :•z! tt!'I!ii..;..;..i .;_ .f: r: ..r~,r.+,__. is Cc:~~ '~•'.it:::i; !_; i.(:-. r:. _. ._. . .'i:~ - -1 i-, -_~ _., _ - .. ~ ' .._ _ ; .... ..! } I"'t T'. .._ ;: I t_. .r} t.. _... i..i .... (: I , . ! r ._ .. u. I { I 1 - i (_ k l ! . _ C'~ .. _ i~ e. _.. tr_ .t ... ~ ... ... t_ .. ._:. _ ' -,. -w? C.t ._; iil~";. i~!!_?ii'i_3 ~'.. (a :r':r:~lC:!~...1. _.. t. iieil i'ei::i f:_"~'~:i ~.... ... ._. ._. _: _.. .~ - , .. r-. - FILE NO.: SA 86-15 ADDRESS: 1415 HACIENDA AVE. P.C. MTG.: APRIL 8, 1986 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. The proposed sign is architecturally compatible with the building design. 2. The proposed sign height of 19'3" and proposed sign area of 64.125 sq. ft. is justified due to the proximity of this sign to the street frontage and that this sign identifies a shopping center. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Applicant to submit a revised plan reflecting red-lining. 2. Applicant to obtain any necessary building or electrical permits. ~~ RESOLUTION NO. 2330 CITY OF CAMPBELL, GLIFORNIA After notification and public hearing as specified by law on the application of Mr. Richard Green on behalf of Union Oil Co. for a use permit and approval of plans and elevations and a siodification to a previously approved use permit (UP 79-18) to allow the remodel of an existing service station into a self-service on property known as 3035 S. f~linchester Blvd. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District, as per application filed in the Office of the Planning Department on March 19, 1985. and after presentation by the Planning Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed (UP 79-18). _ After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Coaission did find as follows: That the establishment, siaintenance, and operation of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, corals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or be detris~ental or injurious to the property and improvements fn the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Based on the above findings, the Planning Commission does hereby grant the requested use permit, subject to the conditions attached hereto as Exhibit A. The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to coanply with all applicable Codes and/oz Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. •PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd day of April, 1985 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: 1Casolas, Perrine, Christ, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None APPROVED: JoAnn Fairbanks Chairperson ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary ~. CONDITIONS Oh APPROVAL: OP y9-18 APPLICANT: Green, R. SITE ADDRESS: 3035 S. Ninchestez P.C. !Q'G. 4-23-85 The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to sleet 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 revised parking layout and additional landscaping to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee 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 sise of plant.matezial, and location of irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission prior to_ issuance of a building pesmit. 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 tither tl) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of ~_ 13000 to insure. landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within 3 aonth: of completion of construction= or t2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas. Bond or agreement t~be• filed with the Planning Department prior to application for a building pe 6. ]-pplicant to submit a plan to the planning Department, prior to installation of PGiE utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and screening of boxes are above ground) for approval of the'" Planning Director. 7. All mechanical equipment on soots and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 8. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. 9. 21150 ofithe Campbellw!lunicipaltCode.deAl1 parkingcspaces to betprovided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. 10. Onderground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Camp)x 11 hunicipal Code. 11. 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. CONDITIONS O? APPROVAL: DP 79-18 APPLICANT: Green, R. SITE ADDRESS: 3035 S. Winchester Page 2 P.C.MTG.: 4-23-85 12. 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). 13. 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 siade with Green Valley Disposal ~pany. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. 14. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Onless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall oz fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Departs+ent. All enclosures ~o be constructed at grade level and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. 15. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. 16. The applicant fs 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, oz be demolished or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 i 11.414, 1979 Ed. oviform Fire Code. LIRE DEPARTMENT 17. Existing nnderground tanks shall be provided with a monitoring system as approved by the Fize Department. 18. Emergency shut-off switches for all pumps shall be located in kiosk. PUBLIC i+IORKS DEPARTMENT No comments. BUILDING DEPARTMENT No comments. • • • PLANNING COMMISSION -Meeting of April 8, 1986 19. Restrooms to remain unlocked and available at all times during 1 business hours. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: NQ~i 86-09/S 84-18 APPLICANT: FIILR, A. SITE ADDRESS: 1436 WHITEOARS RD. P.C. MTG: 4/8/86 1. Property owner to provide an agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, that in the event the exotic car service and auto body shop use is terminated, that the building usage will be returned to the approved building usage as specified by the Planning Commission on November 26, 1985. Said agreement to be recorded with this property. 2. Applicant to obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the Building and Fire Departments. 3. Applicant to provide letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney, limiting the use of this building to: 1. 7,652 sq.ft. office use. 2. 11,228 sq.ft. warehousing/manufacturing use 3. 29,968 sq.ft. auto-related uses. 4. Approval of building usage to be reviewed by Planning Commission one year from date of building occupancy. At the time of this review, the Planning Commission may modify or rescind its approval of this building usage if it finds that a parking problem exists at this location. 5. Property owner to submit agreement, satisfactory to City Attorney, stating that property owner will police on-site parking situation. ~ ~C~~~~~1~~/~ D n ; ,~;,,, +;~`;., ryao March 18, 1986 CITY OF C'4MPQELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT ..Art Kee City of Campbell Planning Department -- 70 N. First Street Campbell, Calif. 95008 Dear Sir, j The property on 1436 White 0a~aks Road which is presently owned by --~ Adron Fu1ke will be leased to the Cerrito Management Company under the ~~ following requested circumstances: .. 1. 7.fie property will be used for the sales and service of Rolls Royce vehicles. 2. A portion of the building will be used as a body shop in accordance with the other Cerrito dealerships. 3. The body work-will be done out of public view, exclusively inside the building. 4. All parts are to remain inside the building. 5. We have determined that the space available for parking is more than adequate to suit our needs and those of our customers. If you have any questions in regards to this matter please contact me at 356-1100. Sincerely,. Salvatore A. Cerrito General Partner pao 16400 LARK AVENUE, SUITE 300 • LOS GATOS, CA. 95030 (408) 356-1100 March 10, 1986 City of Campbell Planning Department 70 North First Street Campbell, Ca. 95008 RE: Modification Reversion at end of Tenant Lease. 1436 White Oaks Road. #MM 85-27/S84-18 Dear Sir: Pertaining to your letter of November 26, 1985 of approval for modification and our site plan APPROVED ( AND SIGNED, NOVEMBER 27, 1985, of the changes. I hereby \__ ~ agree to, at or if, Cerritos Bros, decide to discontinue operation at 1436 White Oaks Rd. (at a much later date) the building will return to this plan of November 27, 1985 approval written in your Condition of Approval #1. Sincerely, Adron Fulk wf cc: file ~. ,. ~~ ~A~~D i _ ;GEC G1TY OF CAMF~.' Pu.NNINC DFPA PTN!. n , k y 1' ~~: ~ ~x:'K.~ ~.. ., 5, ~~ ~~ -o g /'~3lv Gtl~ . nt shall be effective unless set forth in writing and signed by o*_h parties. 35.1 Recording. Either party shall, upon request of the other, execute, acknowledge ..and deliver to the other a "short form" memorandum of this Lease for recording purposes. 36.1 Holding Over. Lf Lessee remains in possession of the Premises or any part thereof after the expiration of the term hereof without the .express written consent of Lessor, such occu- pancy shall be a tenancy from month-to-month at a rental in the amount of the last monthly rental plus all other charges payable hereunder, and upon all the terms hereof applicable to a month- to-month tenancy. 37.1 Lessor's Access. Lessor and Lessor's agents shall have the right to enter the Premises at reasonable times for _ the purpose of inspecting the same, showing the same to prospec- tive purchasers, lenders, or lessees, and making such alterations, repairs, improvements or additions to the Premises or to the building of which they are a part as Lessor may -deem necessary or desirable. Lessor may, at any time, place on or about the Premises any ordinary "For Sale" signs and Lessor may at any time during the last 120 days of the term. hereof place on or about the Premises any ordinary "For Lease" signs, all without rebate of rent or liability to Lessee. ~f Executed at San Jose, California, this o20 ~ day of i December, 1985. ._ "LESSOR": ~ "' ~ r f ~ ~/ , f .,~~ /Y, ,. i` ~` ..- CARL} DRON FOLK WILMA E. FOLK "LESSEE": INVESTMENT P OPERTIES A Califor r~,Y tnership BY: ~STF~HEt~ R. fLE~R ~ General_..Fa t er `-•~°- OY ~: R'RRRITO en ra,l Partner BY: T,.B~LVA~'ORE A. CERRITO G ral artner BY : ~i~.l l~ ~~.L~v, J C H. HILZEARY G n ral Partner -28- after Lessee has vacated the Premises. No trust relationship is created herein between Lessor and Lessee with respect to said Security Deposit. 6.1 Use of Premises, Generally. Lessee may use the Premises for any purpose allowable by the applicable zoning ordinances or other governmental regulations. Lessee shall have the right to make such improvements, additions or alterations to the Premises as it desires, and shall have the right to remove them from the Premises upon the termination of this Lease. Lessee shall keep the leased Premises free from all liens arising out of any work performed, material furnished or obligations incurred by Lessee. Lessee agrees to make no structural changes to the leased Premises, including, but not limited to, the attachment of any supporting brackets to the laminated truss beams without the prior written approval and consent of Lessor. Lessee shall, at~Lessee's expense, comply promptly with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders, restrictions of record, and requirements in effect during the term or any part of the term hereof regulating the use by Lessee of the Premises. Lessee shall not use or permit the use of the Premises in any manner that will tend to create waste or a -~ nuisance or, if there shall be more than one tenant in the build- ing containing the Premises, shall tend to disturb such other tenant(s). All motor vehicles owned by, subject to the control ~of, or in the possession of Lessee shall be removed from adjacent city streets, access and egress, driveways and parking lot of the Premises, and shall be stored "out of sight" between the hours of 12:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. daily. Any motor vehicles remaining on adjacent city streets, in access or egress, driveways, or parking lot, between the hours of 12:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. daily, may be removed by Lessor and/or the City of Campbell, at Lessee's sole expense. ~_ ~. On the last day of the term hereof, or upon any .sooner termination, Lessee shall surrender the Premises to Lessor in the same condition as received, broom clean, ordinary wear and tear excepted. Lessee shall repair any damage to the Premises occasioned by the removal of trade fixtures, furnishings and equipment, which repairs shall include the patching and filliny of holes and repair of structural damage. 7.1 No Waste, Nuisance, or Unlawful Use. Lessee shall not commit, or allow to be committed, any waste on the Premises, _ create or allow any nuisance to exist on the Premises, or use or allow the Premises to be used for any unlawful purpose.. -3-