Loading...
PC Min 03/11/1986PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7 : 30 PIi MINUTES MARCIi 11, 1986 i 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. POLL CALL Present Commissioners: Ols~ewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Fairbanks, Kasolas; Principal Planner Phil Stafford, Planner II Marty Woodworth, Engineering Pianager Bill Helms, Acting City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis . Absent Commissioner Dickson; Planning Director A. A. Kee. APPROVAL OF ;•1NUTES M/S: Fairbanks, Olszewski - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 25 , 1986 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. * ~ COIII•NIdICATIONS Chairman Kasolas noted that communications received pertained to specific agenda items and would be discussed at that time. * ~ ~ AP.CIiITECTURAL APPROVALS S 86-02 Application of Mr. Joseph Herr for Kerr, J. approval of plans to allow an addition to an industrial building, a fenced in storage area and a cargo storage container on property known as 950 Camden Ave. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Revieca Committee. In that the applicant was not present at this meeting, the Site Committee is recommending a continuance. Iir. Stafford noted that the applicant contacted the Planning Department, and he is in concurrence with a continuance. -2- Ai/S: Perrine, Fairbanks - That S 36-02 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of ?larch 25, 1986. Alotion carried unanimously (6-0-1). ~ ~ ~ V 86-01 Continued public hearing to consider the Krupp, J. application of Air. 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. Chairman Kasolas noted correspondence (attached hereto) received from Gregory T. Price, iJsq., attorney representing the applicant, dated March 10, 19S6. One of the letters requests a continuance to Aiarch 25, 1986; and, the other letter is in support of the subject variance. ~4r. Stafford indicated that Staff has read the subject correspondence, but has not had an opportunity to discuss it with the City Attorney. Chairman Kasolas asked if the variance and the proposed use permit can be considered simultaneously, or if they must be considered separately. Air. Seligmann felt that they could be considered simultaneously, however he was not clear, at this point, if the variance would be necessary if the use permit procedure is followed. The issue needs further review. Chairman Kasolas indicated that it would be the applicant's responsibility to take steps for the use permit. Chairman Y.asolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speat: for or against this item. Air. Greg Price, representing the applicant, stated that it is the applicant's intention to file an application for a use permit, and that they are in a;reement with dates presented by Staff.. Airs. Maurine Cherry, 126 Cherry Ln., gave a brief history of the property noting that the previous owners, Air. and Airs. Burnett, lived in the garage before the house was built. She has asked the Burnetts to send. a letter further explaining the history of the property. firs. Cherry added that she didn't see why this type of situation occurred every time a property sold on this street. S11e asked cahat the applicant is going to do. Chairman FCasolas asked iir. Stafford to explain the conditional use permit procedure to Afrs. Cherry. --- t -3- ASS: Fairbanks, Olszewski - That V 86-01 be continued to the ~ Planning Commission meeting of April 22, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). * * ~ UP 86-02 Public hearing to consider the Rueter, J. application of Air. James Rueter for a use permit to allow the conversion of 1500 sq.ft. of storage space to office use; and approval of plans for exterior modifications to an existing office building on property known as 155 E. Campbell Ave, in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Air. Stafford reviewed the application, and noted that in the past, the City Council and Planning .Commission have expressed concerns regarding parking in the downtown area. As the Commission is aware, the City is in the process of developing a downtown revitalization plan of which parking and traffic circulation will be a major element. In light of the changes anticipated do~,mto~,m, Staff cannot support entering into an agreement at this time which could place a greater burden on downtown parking facilities. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Air. Jim Rueter, applicant, explained the proposed agreement which provides for the monitoring of parking, noting that the agreement is a draft and he is willing to make any changes the Commission deems necessary. tor. Rueter. also stated his willingness to participate in a downtown parking district in the future. Commissioner Stanton asked who is going to monitor the parking. Air. Rueter responded that the tenants will police the parking, as provided for in their lease. If problems occur, the property owner will take action to rectify the situation. ti/S: Fairbanks, Christ - That the public hearing on UP 8G-02 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (b-0-1). I~i/S: Fairbanks, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution indicating the following findings and approve UP 86-02 subject to conditions indicated in the Staff - Report: -4- 1. The applicant has agreed to enter into an agreement with the City which would require him to revert the 1500 sq.ft. back to storage space should parking be determined to be insufficient. 2. Staff has visited the site on several occasions and observed 7-15 empty parking spaces. 3. In 1982 the City Council restricted the use of the building to 5000 sq.ft. of net rentable office area, 1500 sq.ft. of net rentable storage area, and 3842 sq.ft, of non-assignable area (lobby, hallway, restrooms, etc.). 4. The exterior changes will enhance the appearance of the building and help strengthen property values. 5. The low intensity of the building will reduce the need for additional parking. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Fairbanks, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: P7one ABSENT: Commissioners: Dickson. * * ~ MISCELLANEOUS MDi 86-02 Continued application of tir. Jack Weymer, J. Weymer, on behalf of Diervyn's, for a modification to PD 72-09 to allow the placement of 13 cargo storage containers on property known as 950 W. Hamilton Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/ .Commercial) Zoning District. Chairman Kasolas noted correspondence (attached hereto) regarding this application, dated March 6, 1986, requesting a continuance in order that plans for an addition to the existing structure might be submitted. Dir. Stafford stated that Staff's recommendation would be for a continuance to March 25, 1986 in concurrence with the applicant's request. The Commission discussed possible time frames with Dir. Weymer, who noted that he would like to have the addition completed by September 1986. -5- i1/S: Olszewski, Perrine - That PiI.1 86-02 be continued to the Planning Commission. meeting of June 24, - 1986, in that the applicant is moving forward on plans for enlarging the building. notion carried unanimously (6-0-1). Commissioner Stanton asked Pir. Weymer what type of security is provided for the storage containers. Mr. Weymer indicated that the area is well-lighted, however, no specific security is provided. Although this is a definite risk, it is one that the store has to live with. * ~ ~ Mhi 56-03 Application of tiyung Sik Lee for a Lee, i•1. modification to the conditions of an approved use permit to extend the hours of operation for an oriental-style billiard room for property known as 2099 S. Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Chairman Kasolas noted correspondence (attached hereto) pertaining to this item from I-irs. Patricia Figueroa, and requested the Recording Secretary to read this letter of opposition. Chairman Kasolas asked the applicant if they wished a continuance in order to revie~o the contents of the subject letter. Iir. Kim, representing the applicant, explained the request for extended hours of operation. He continued that the extended hours would mean approximately 16 people in the late evening, with approximately 4 cars. The applicant would be agreeable to making these late evening customers park near the business, rather than in the rear parking lot next to the apartments. Commissioner Olszewski asked about the income statement presented by the applicant, and how much additional income could be anticipated by increasing the hours of operation. Pir. I:im indicated that additional income would be approximately $36 a day. Chairman Kasolas asked that the discussion be limited to the Commission's charge of granting or modifying a use permit. Commissioner Stanton asked if there had been any other complaints, other than the presented letter from firs. Figueroa. i~Ir. (aoodworth responded that the Police and Fire Department have had no complaints; and, he explained the 6-month review condition as well as the controls allowable under a use permit. K T -6- ii/S: Fairbanks, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings and modify Condition ido. 7 of the approved Use Permit 85-03 to extend the closing time from 12 midnight to 2:00 a.m. for a period of 6 months. The Commission to hold a review of the project at its meeting of September 9, 1986, at which time it will determine whether or not to extend the closing time to 2:00 a.m. for an indefinite period. All other previous conditions to remain in effect. Discussion of Motion Commissioner Perrine stated that he is favor of the motion, in that it seems to be a quiet operation. Commissioner Fairbanks acknowledged the letter from Mrs. Figueroa, noting she appreciates her concerns. Commissioner Fairbanks thought that Staff has responded to these concerns by requiring the change to be reviewed in six months. Vote on Motion Motion carries with a vote of 5-1-1, with Commissioner Olszewski voting "no", and Commissioner Dickson being absent. Mhf 86-07 Application of Mr. Larry von Klein for von Klein, L. a modification to an existing use permit to allow an auto-related use in an area approved for retail use on property known as 2885 S. Winchester Blvd.- in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Pir. Stafford reviewed this application, noting that Staff has visited the site and expresses a concern with the on-site parking in that cars were parked in the driveway areas. Staff would recommend, as a condition of approval, that all driveway areas be signed prohibiting parking. Chairman I:asolas asked for the original recommendation of the Planning Commission on this project. Mr. Stafford indicated that the original recommendation of the Commission was for denial, with a finding that the number of auto-related uses was --- excessive in the City. The application was appealed to the City Council, and referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration of revised plans . - -7- M/ Fairbanks, That the Planning Commission approve the applicant's request to permit a modification to the approved usage allowing additional auto service uses, subject to the conditions indicated in the Staff Report, and with the addition of a condition requiring signing prohibiting parking in driveway areas . Motion died for lack of a second. ti/S: Christ, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission deny MM 86-07, in that at the time of the original application it-was determined that the front portions of the building be maintained as retail to buffer the auto-related uses. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: Dickson Mr. Stafford explained the appeal process to the applicant. * ~ SA 86-08 Continued sign application of Sleek Sleek Travel Travel for property known as 900 E. Campbell Ave. in .a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. M/S: Christ, Fairbanks - That SA 86-08 be removed from the Planning Commission agenda, in that the applicant has modified his signing proposal so that the proposed signing falls within the sign ordinance. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). SA 86-15 Sign application of Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Center 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 F~eview Committee. A continuance is recommended in order that the applicant may submit revised plans. -8- ti/S: Perrine, Fairbanks - That SA 86-15 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 8, 1986 in order that revised plans may be submitted. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). * ~ ~ Request Request of Pir. James Smith for a Smith, J. clarification by the Planning Commission to determine if a rug and upholstery cleaners is an allowable use in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Woodworth reviewed the request, noting that Staff is of the opinion that the proposed use is-not consistent with the allowed uses in the C-2-S zoning district, but it is really an industrial operation and would be allowable in an industrial zone. The purpose of the C-2-S district as stated in Section 21.24.010 of the code is to allow retail commercial buildings and service facilities adapted to general commercial use. Staff would interpret "cleaning establishments" to be dry cleaners and laundromats. Furthermore, rug manufacturing and cleaning is an allowed use in the CPi (Controlled Panufacturing) zoning district. Under .the zoning code, when a use is listed in a less restrictive zoning district (i.e. Controlled Manufacturing), it is not allowed in a more restrictive -- zoning district (i.e. General Commercial). In summary, from the evidence submitted the rug and upholstery cleaners is more of an industrial use than a commercial use, consequently, it should not be allowed in the C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Pir. Smith, applicant, explained that there are four rug cleaning plants in the Santa Clara Valley; people bring the rugs to the facility; large equipment consists of a 16' ringer machine, drying racks, and vacuum cleaners; this type of use is no different from a laundromat; everything is done inside the building. Responding to a question regarding the necessity of a roll-up door, Pir. Smith indicated that the door was not necessary, however it makes it more convenient for the customer to unload. Commissioner Perrine asked Staff in what zoning district this type of use is allowed in other cities. Pir. Woodworth indicated that Staff has not checked with other cities; however, from the applicant's testimony on the location of the other rug cleaning plants in the Santa Clara Valley, they appear to be in industrial areas. He noted that this type of use is permitted in the CM: manufacturing districts. Commissioner Stanton asked Mr. Smith how much water is used on a daily basis. tir. Smith noted that he was unsure, however, it was probably no more than a car wash would use. -9- Mr. Smith continued that he is willing to change the roll up doors. He noted an adjacent property with 15 roll-up doors-and junk cars in the parking area. i~/ Perrine, That the Planning Commission adopt the attached findings and determine that a rug and upholstery cleaners is not a permitted use in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Motion died for lack of a second. M/S: Olszewski, Stanton - That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution with the following findings, and determine that a rug and upholstery cleaners is an allowable use in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District: 1. That a rug and upholstery cleaners is similar to other uses in the C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. 2. A rug and upholstery cleaners is a service-oriented use where people normally bring, in their own vehicles, large rugs and/or furniture for cleaning. 3. A rug and upholstery cleaners would not use more water than a typical carwash. 4. The design of the proposed building will have to be approved by the Planning Commission. Discussion on Motion Commissioner Christ noted that if this use is to be operated as a retail business, then it should have more of the appearance of a retail business than an industrial or warehouse building. Chairman Kasolas noted that the reason the former CH (Highway Commercial) zoning was eliminated was because it appeared that there were too many industrial uses in this particular area and the Commission wanted to put a different emphasis on this part of Winchester Blvd. because it was a main entrance/exit to the City. He continued that the Commission required the Southbay development, across the street, to flip its whole design around to avoid the roll-up doors showing to the street. He felt that if the Commission approved this request, it should reconsider MM 86-07. -10- Commissioner Perrine expressed concern about the use in a General Commercial zoning. Vote on Motion Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Christ, Stanton, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: Perrine, Kasolas ABSE2dT: Commissioners: Dickson. MM 86-07 von Klein, L. Chairman Kasolas asked if, in light of the previous item, the Commission wished to reconsider MM 86-07. Mr. Larry von Klein, applicant, explained his request, noting that retail uses would still be kept in the portion of the development visible from Winchester Blvd. It was the consensus of the Commission that the decision for denial of MM 86-07 stand. * * ~ ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. APPROVED: George C. Kasolas Chairman ATTEST: Philip J. Stafford Acting Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary GREGORY T. PRICE, ESQ. 814 - D EDGEHLL DRIVE BURLINGAME, CALIrORNIA .94010 -- (415) 342-5550 March 10, 1986 City of Campbell Arthur A. Kee Planning Director City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, California 95008 Re: V 86-01-174 Cherry Lane MAR 11 tgg6 CITY OF CAMP6ELL PLANNING DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FROM TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1986 TO TUESDAY, MARCH 25,1986 (OR LATER DATE IN THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS DISCRETION) - To the Planning Director, Committee, Staff, The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell and other interested parties and individuals: The above applicant requests a continuance until March 25, 1986, or thereafter as the Planning Commission has an opportunity to review the appropriate documents, set forth below. It has recently come to this parties attention that there is provision i~ the City of Campbell Codes which allows for a conditional use permit which would allow, where there has been a converted garage, the use of the property without a covered parking space. This has only recently come to the attention of the applicants herein. Applicants intend to apply for said conditional use permit, and need time to submit the appropriate documents with the appropriate filing fee in this regard, and are proceeding to do so forthwith. It appears under this current situation, that the staff does not _ favor the variance proposed by the applicants and that the conditional use permit may be a more appropriate resolution to the problem. Additionally, it appears that the permit and variance applications should be considered simultaneously rather than consecutively in order that a proper decision may be achieved by the Planning Commission. For these reasons, applicant requests a continuance to a date to be determined by the Planning Commission for overall review of both applications. It would seem that either a variance or a conditional use permit should be issued in order to come to a fair and final resolution of this situation. It would seem impractical to review the two applications at separate times. For all of the above reasons a continuance is respectfully requested by this applicant in order that all the facts may be presented to the Commission and all the applications relevant to the subject proper-ty be presented simultaneously for due consideration. Respectfully submitted, 3 - ~o- 8~ Date GREGOR T. PRICE, ESQ. on behalf of Dr. Jeffrey D. Krupp and Karen Krupp L GREGORY T. PRICE, ESQ. 814 - D EDGEHILL DRIVE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342.-5550 March 10, 1986 City of Campbell Arthur A. Kee Planning Director City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, Calif oxnia 95008 Re: V 86-01-174 Cherry Lane To the Planning Director, Committee, Staff, The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell and other interested parties and individuals: STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE BACKGROUND FACTS This application for variance stems from a complaint in some form (never produced for review by the variance applicants herein) that an accessory building was being used as a living unit on the subject property herein. The planning department duly notified the applicants of this complaint and subsequently an informal hearing (meeting) was held with myself, representing the Krupps, Marty Woodworth representing the Planning Department, and J. Robert Dempsey representing the City of Campbell. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the situation and the meeting resulted in an oral agreement with respect to the subject property. Essentially, the terms of the agreement called for the Krupps to refrain from using the accessory unit as a living unit. The fact of the matter is that at the time of the meeting the accessory unit was not being used as a living unit and has not been used as a living unit since that date, and the Krupps have no intention of so using the accessory unit. The agreement further was made that the resolution of any problem created by some previous owner's conversion of the detached garage might be to install a carport which would provide the single covered parking space required for conformity with the City's ordinances-for a residence of this nature. WHY A VARIANCE IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS INSTANCE Pursuant to Chapter 2166 of the Campbell Municipal Ordinances, this statement will demonstrate that the variance application herein is of the type which should be granted in the best interests of the City of Campbell and the property owner- applicants. First, the Krupps have submitted blueprints with respect to a proposed design for construction of a carport which has been received by the City; submitted initially on November 4, 1985. Second, blueprints were also submitted which depicted the detached building, essentially setting forth the building as it was converted at some unknown point in time. Parenthetically, it appears that the building was converted at some point in the last twenty (20) years. This party has received from the planning commission a memo of some sort which indicates that on February 3, 1966 (at which time one R. Russell Bair was the owner of the property), the detached garage could be described as follows: "2. A workshop is housed by a detached garage although ample parking area for an automobile is still provided. The other one-half of the garage contains a partially completed camping trailer. A bathroom containing a toilet, lavoratory and showers located adjacent to the working area." In addition to installing one covered parking space and assuring the City that the accessory building would not be used for living purposes, a discussion of "capping-off" the kitchen stove utilities was discussed. At the time of the meeting with the City attorney, there was discussion of filing notice, with respect to the property, that the accessory building was not to be used as a living unit. CONSIDERATIONS OF FAIRNESS AND EQUITY ARE RELEVANT IN THIS INSTANCE Often variances are sought when a property owner seeks to make an affirmative change in their own property for their own benefit. Here, the property owners are attempting in good faith and at their own expense, to correct a situation inherent in the property at the time of purchase. The Krupps were ignorant of any noncompliance with City ordinances at the time they purchased the subject property. The Krupps did not convert the subject ag rage and. have submitted the variance application in an attempt to resolve the situation. There is an exceptional condition and extraordinary circumstance involved in the subject property in that the previous owner apparently modified the accessory building which appears to have L been a detached garage. The remodeled, detached garage is not feasible for use as a parking garage. At the time of purchase, the Krupps were provided no information by anyone involved in the transaction or otherwise, regarding any nonconformity with City Codes with respect to this property. Be that as it may, in order to rectify any noncompliance with City ordinances currently in effect, the Krupps are attempting to work with the City in such a manner as to create a solution to the historical situation. ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS One solution which was not proposed by the variance, which might very well lead to a second variance application, would be to exempt these property owners from the necessity of one covered parking space. If this were to be allowed no construction would have to be done, and the status quo could be maintained. The applicant is now in-the process of submitting an application for a conditional use permit as an alternative to the variance requested herein. The other logical alternative is the variance requested with respect to installation and construction of a carport as indicated in the plan submitted. It appears that the logical solutions herein require a variance either to allow a carport of a design that the planning commission finds appropriate, or to exempt these property owners from the requirement of one covered parking space byway of variance or conditional use permit. The requirements of equity would seem to favor either of these two solutions to a problem which was not created by the applicants herein. CONCLUSION The applicants respectfully request that the Planning Commission grant the variance application herein. Allowing this variance will cause the following results: 1) Provide for the proper and reasonable use of property of unique characteristics; which use shall totally conform to existing regulations and which use cannot be made without this variance. 2) The variance will place this property on an equal footing with similarly situated parcels. 3) The variance will facilitate conformity with zoning ordinances, and ultimately preserve the integrity of the 3 ordinances. 4) Allowing the variance is a fair and equitable resolution favorable to the City, the general public, and the applicants. Attached are some responsive comments indexed to the "checklist for variance cases" which was provided to the applicant by the planning commission. Respectfully submitted, 3- ~ c- ~~ Date i - P,~ GREGOR T. PRICE, ESQ. on behalf of Dr. Jeffrey D. Krupp and Karen Krupp H CHECKLIST FOR VARIANCE CASES A. The applicant does not attack the zoning law in this -- particular instance as bad or unreasonable. Applicant is requesting t.o be excused from the five foot setback in order to resolve a situation for which they were not originally responsible. This appears to be the .most practical solution, outside of a variance or conditional use permit excusing the requirement of one covered parking space for this residential property. - B. Clearly, there is an unnecessary hardship in having to comply with the zoning as written, due to the change in the lot which was made by a previous owner. The variance is simply asking that for a short area of the property line there be a variance applied with respect to the setback requirement. The property does not have the setback room (due to the construction of the residence) for a carport without a sideyard setback variance with respect to setback. C. The applicant is not requesting relief because of problems. created by applicant. The property itself, with the structures as they now exist, creates the problem for which this variance is a sound solution. D. Granting a variance in this particular case will not lead to a host of other lots seeking the same variance for an equal situation. This is truly a unique, unusual and unfortunate `- situation for which a variance is uniquely appropriate. E. Clearly, as stated above, this hardship was not self-imposed by the applicant. In fact, it will constitute no small expense on the part of this homeowner in order to construct the carport in order to create the covered parking space that the City requires. F. No hardship or damage to the neighbor's property will be caused by the variance, as the lighting will not be effected and, if anything, the construction of the carport will provide the neighboring property with more privacy, which indisputably is an asset to residential property. , G. There are no uses violating the goals of the general plan known to the applicant. H. Applicant's argument is not "it can do no real harm", therefore, this item need not be further discussed. I. With respect to the hardship herein, granting the variance will remove an unnecessary, unusual and absolutely uncontemplated hardship which was cleated at some point in time unknown to the Commission and unknown to the property owner to this day. This is not a general or area-wide hardship that is being addressed, rather, it is a hardship of one particular piece of property due p• to the .acts of previous property owners in the City of Campbell. If this were a widespread situation, applicant is confident the City would have already instituted a fair, equitable, and just resolution to the problem. J. In order to proceed with use as a residence with one covered parking space as the City requires, a variance allowing construction of the carport or omitting the necessity of one covered parking space, will be necessary so that the property can be reasonably used as a residence for family living as the property zoning intended. K. Not applicable. L. Not applicable. M. 1) As stated above, this is an extremely extraordinary circumstance and it would seem that there are few instances where property owners are faced with the kind of problem that the applicant is attempting to resolve herein. This clearly distinguishes it from other property similarly zoned. On how many occassions has this problem been presented to the Commission? How many property owners have been so willing to attempt to resolve the situation at their ownexpense? Due to the extraordinary circumstance, the property owners seek relief from one (1) requirement in the zoning ordinance which will completely resolve the situation. 2) Just as this is an extraordinary circumstance, this is a unique situation due to the lack of proper setback on either side of the property for purposes of installing a carport. If there was sufficient room, clearly the property owners would make an application to place the carport without the need for a variance. 3) The hardship is directly related to the property right of beneficial use and enjoyment property. Without a variance or exemption from a single covered parking space, it is virtually the property owners to enjoy the beneficial use due to conditions not of their own making. substantial ~f one' s the necessity of impossible for of their property 4) The effect on neighboring properties has previously been discussed. 5) Clearly, granting the variance is not tantamount to a major change in the zoning principles involved in the City of Campbell. R-Z ~. a 1::,>: ,-`~F` ~ ;~,_~ Vii:,. n_ ..,_ , ,~r_ MERVYN'S DEPARTMENT STORE 954 WEST HAMILTON AVENUE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95048 MR. TIM HALEY CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CAMPBELL 70 NORTH FIRST STREET CAMPBELL, CA 95008 Dear Mr. Haley: ~Y~ ~G -ate ~ ~~~0~~ ..., D Mp R c ~ ~9ss CITY OF CAMPBELL P~-I-NNINO DEPARTMENT MARCH 6, 1986 I am writing in regard to our conversation today concerning my hope for continuance of the Planning Commission's approval to keep thirteen (13) Cargo Containers behind the South side of our building. Since the last meeting I have received a copy of a letter from our landlord, Milton Meyer and Company, which approves our request to expand our store. I very much hope that this will show you that we are moving closer to the day when we will be formally requesting City approval of our expansion plans. (Copy of letter attached). In the meantime we very much need this extra time to facilitate the high level of our volume of business which at the same time steadily adds to the City of Campbell's income. I hope you concur with this request and that the Commission will kindly approve of it as well. Sincerely, wR o1. Jack I Weymer Store Director Campbell Store RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FILE NO: MM 86-03/UP 85-03 APPLICANT: LEE, M. SITE ADDRESS: 2099 S BASCOM AVE f P. C. MTG. 3/11/86 ~. 1. Condition No. 7 of Resolution No. 2326 limits the hours of operation from 12:00 noon to 12:00 midnight. 2. The applicant wishes to extend the closing time from 12:00 midnight to 2:00 a.m. 3. A six-month review was held by the Planning Commission on October 22, 1985 and no problems were found regarding the business. 4. The Police, Planning, and Fire Departments have received no complaints regarding the business and have experienced no problems with it. 5. Conditions No. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 of Resolution No. 2326 are required to minimize the generation of noise. * * •