Loading...
PC Min 01/14/1986PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES JANUARY 14, 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: Kasolas, Christ, Olszewski, Dickson, Fairbanks; Planning Director A. A. Kee, Planner II Marty Woodworth Engineering Manager Bill Helms, Acting City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Commissioner Perrine EXCHANGE OF GAVEL Chairman Fairbanks turned the gavel over to Commissioner Kasolas, elected Chairman for 1986. Chairman Kasolas presented a plaque to Commissioner Fairbanks as out-going Chairman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Christ, Fairbanks - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1985 be approved as submitted. Motion carried with a vote of 5-0-1 (Commissioner Perrine being absent). COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee reported that communications received pertained to specific agenda items. ORAL REQUESTS Mr. John Toshach expressed his appreciation for the support of the Commission during his tenure as Planning Commissioner, and thanked them for their interest in preserving the City. Mr. Toshach also thanked Staff at length, noting it's professionalism. -2- ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 85-14 Continued application of Mr. Marc Williams, M. Williams for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a retail building on properties known as 915 & 921 S. San Tomas Aquino Rd. and 1272 Elam Ave. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning Distric*_. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Co;~mittee is recommending continuance with the applicant's concurrence. M/S: Fairbanks, Christ - That S 85-14 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). S 85-18 Continued application of Mr. J. Michael F?~rton, J. Horton, AIA, for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of an 8-unit apartment complex on property ___ known as 68 Sunnyside Ave. in an R-2-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. M/S: Christ, Fairbanks - That S 85-18 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 1986 at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). S 85-19 Application of Mr. Dana Pefferle for Pefferle, D. approval of plans and elevations to allow an addition to an existing office building on property known as 197 E. Hamilton Ave. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this- item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission approve S 85-19, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report (attached hereto). Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). -3- PUBLIC HEARINGS PD 85-11 Continued public hearing to consider Morelan, J. the application of Mr. Jim Morelan, on behalf of Jovan Jovanovic, for approval of a Planned Development Permit; and plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of a building addition and a new office/auto related building on properties known as 75 Dillon Ave. and 40 & 48 Railway Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending a continuance on this item, with the concurrence of the applicant. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Fairbanks, Christ - That PD 85-11 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). GP 85-03 Public hearing to consider a City- City-initiated initiated General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (less than 6 units per gross acre) to Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 units per gross acre) for properties known as 1142, 1154, 1182 & 1186 Smith Ave. and 944, 946, 948, 950, 952, 954, 956, 958 & 964 S. San Tomas Aquino Rd. tAr. Woodworth reviewed this General Plan Amendment, noting that the north side of Smith Ave., across from the proposed change, is currently designated as Low-Medium Density Residential and pretty much development with townhomes and apartments. The four corner properties at San Tomas Aquino Rd. and Smith Ave. are indicated as Commercial, with two being vacant at this time. The properties to the west, across San Tomas Aquino Rd. from the proposed change, are indicated as Low Density Residential, as are the properties to the south and east of the proposed change. The proposed change would allow the potential of up to 17 additional units over what currently would be allowed. These units could be single family, townhomes, apartments, or condominiums. - Commissioner Dickson noted that the same argument for changing the General Plan can be made to keep it as it is. He felt that the existing townhomes are an intrusion on the R-1 area. The Commission should keep in mind what they want for the City in this area. -4- Mr. Kee gave a brief background of the zoning on these parcels, noting that at one time they were zoned Low-Medium Density Residential. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Theodore Scelline, 1182 Smith Ave., stated that he is in favor of the General Plan change. He read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Snider, property owners of 1186 Smith Ave., requesting that the property be rezoned to Low-Medium Density. Mr. Thomas Paolucci, 1134 Linda Dr., spoke regarding traffic on Linda Dr., noting that everyone in the area sees the rezoning as worsening the traffic situation. Mr. Paolucci reported that there is an illegal junkyard on one'bf-the subject properties, and asked why the City didn't do something about it. He concluded that he is not opposed to development in the area if the City would do something to help with the traffic problem. Mr. Leo Boyd, 945 Torero Plaza, wondered if a zone change would result in ~a general deterioration of the area and cause additional imbalances. Mr. Bruce Reid, 1509 Walnut Dr., asked what precedent caused the change to the zoning on the north side of Smith Ave. allowing the townhomes. He felt that the General Plan specifically states that this type of thing _.__ (changing from R-1) can't happen. Mr. Scelline noted that he has been in the San Tomas Area for 35 years, and it-needs more than development--it needs cleaning up. If anyone objects, they should take a look at the area. Mr. Scelline continued that there have been no problems from the apartments that are around him. If the area is not developed in this generation, it will be developed in the next one. Mr. Doug Aumack, 1151 Smith Ave., stated that it is absolutely his desire to see something positive happen on this street, and that the pleasant definition of rural is gone from the area. He noted that the area was zoned for the higher density when it was in the County. Mr. Aumack continued that there are very fews cars parked on the street because of the provided off-street parking. Mr. Al Pinn, 2470 S. Winchester Blvd., stated that he will be proposing a zero-lot line development of 18 units. The proposed density would result in an increase of approximately 9 units for the area. Mr. Pinn continued that the area's traffic problems are caused by people cutting through the area, as stated by the residents themselves. The homeowner's across the street want to see something happen. in the neighborhood, and this does not seem likely unless the density is changed. Commissioner Olszewski asked about traffic on Linda Drive. -5- Mr. Helms responded that the Linda Drive resident's description is fairly j accurate. The problems seem to be caused by through traffic. Mr. Helms ~~ explained the Circulation Element of the. General Plan, noting that the east/west arterial for this neighborhood is Hacienda Ave., and it is only two lanes in several places; although, under the three-year Capital Improvement Plan, it is planned to be four lanes. Additionally, the north/south alignment on Harriet was removed from the Element, and it is proposed to up-grade Pollard Rd. Funds have been programmed for improvements on Hacienda and Pollard; and, completion of these arterials should relief some of the problems in the area. It is also felt that Hwy. 85 will greatly help the situation. Mr. Helms continued that developments outside the City, over which we have little control, also impose traffic conditions on the community. Commissioner Olszewski asked if there was anything that could be done to help the situation in the area now, rather than having to wait for implementation of the CIP. Mr. Helms indicated that there are some things that can be done to slow people down. Public Works has already added a double line on San Tomas Aquino Rd. at the curve but perhaps consideration should be given to a barrier. Mr. Paolucci asked why clean-up of the area must be done through development rather than through code enforcement. He noted that the residents had written a letter to the Public Works Department over a year ~ ago, and wondered why it takes so long for things to be done. ~~ Ms. Marlene Garnet, 1141 Lovell Ave., felt that high densities should also result in better design and better landscaping. Mr. Lee Peterson, 1156 Audrey Ave., spoke against increased density in the area. Mr. Peterson continued that Chairman Kasolas is President of the Chamber of Commerce, and the Chamber's job is to promote. commercial growth of the City. He questioned Chairman Kasolas's ability to act in an unbiased manner when serving on the Commission. Chairman Kasolas noted that he is no longer President of the Chamber. M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That the public hearing on GP 85-03 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). Commissioner Olszewski asked about code enforcement proceedings on properties referred to this evening. Mr. Woodworth responded that the junkyard on parcel 13 has been given three months by the Court to clean the property up. Staff has just become aware of the auto repair on parcel 14, and has just started the code enforcement process. Commissioner Dickson noted that the Low-Medium density in the area appears _- to be an intrusion, and asked how it came about. -6- Mr. Kee noted that it goes back to when the General Plan was reviewed for the City. This was one of the areas that was recommended for the higher density of low-medium, which is generally associated with its closeness to commercial areas. A later General Plan review resulted in some areas being changed to low density; however, the areas to the north had already been developed so this was not changed. Commissioner Christ stated that he did not disagree with the sentiment that the area needed cleaning up; however, he did not think that increasing density is the only way to accomplish this clean-up. Even if traffic is not from the area, it still has to be looked at. Commissioner Christ felt that the Commission should have more information on traffic and possible mitigation measures. He though that this area definitely needs redevelopment; however, this should not automatically mean more intense development. M/S: Dickson, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this project; and, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny GP 85-03. Discussion of Motion Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she felt that the Commission needs to .,, be careful when considering General Plan changes because of spot zoning; she is against this change for traffic reasons, in that streets in this ~ j area do not adequately move the traffic. that comes through the area; the San Tomas Policy for development for this area states that development will be low density residential in this area; buffers are usually situated outside an area, whereas this "buffer" is in the center of the area drawing heavier traffic into the area. Commissioner Fairbanks agreed that the area needs to be cleaned-up, but felt that this did not necessarily have to mean increased density. Commissioner Olszewski stated that he looks at this as an opportunity to improve the area, seeing real benefits for the neighborhood in a sense of increased support for the commercial area; :density does not connote negative things happening. Regarding traffic, Commissioner Olszewski felt that future measures will help the situation, and interim measures can be taken. He added that the -size and depth of these lots make them rather expensive, and they would have to be developed with rather extravagant homes which would not fit in with the area. Commissioner Dickson stated that the General Plan is not supposed to be easily changed. In this instance, we have a developer with a fine reputation, and we have a bad lot.. He continued that he would also like to see the area cleaned-up, but he was not sure that increasing density was the way to do it. This area is being slowly eaten away by density changes; the buffer should be on the outside. Commissioner Dickson concluded that if we show people that we are serious about having ~ development a certain way, we will have quality development come in to i meet those needs. He stated that he is favor of denying this proposal. -7- Chairman Kasolas noted that action has been taken to recommend a change to low-medium density on three of the lots under GP 85-02, and to vote -- against GP 85-03 would mean that the parcels on San Tomas Aquino Rd. would remain non-conforming. He felt that the Commission to listen to the people who are directly affected by this proposal--the property owners and the people across the street. The residents on Linda Dr. have a specific problem with traffic that they would like an answer to--they do not have a problem with the development of the subject parcels. Nothing has happened in this area in the ten years it has been zoned R-1. Changing the density does not mean that things will happen immediately. The option for the property owners would seem appropriate. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Christ, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Olszewski, Kasolas ABSENT: Commissioners: Perrine Motion for recommendation of denial of GP 85-03 passes with a vote of 3-2-1. COi7FLICT OF INTEREST I Responding to a question from Chairman Kasolas regarding conflict of i interest, Mr. Seligmann stated that conflict of interest is based upon whether or not the outcome of a decision would involve a financial change for the commissioner voting on the item. The Commissioner recessed at 8:55 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:05 p.m. PD 85-10 Continued public hearing to consider the Anderson, K. application of Mr. Kurt Anderson for a Planned Development Permit and approval of plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of 13 townhomes on property known as 75 Union Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/High Density Residential ) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and ARchitectural Review Committee. The Committee is pleased with the architectural design of the project and is of the opinion that it will work in this particular location. Concerns were expressed with the parking, and the applicant has revised plans to present to the Commission. Therefore, the Committee would recommend approval of the ~~ Planned Development Permit; and, that the conceptual parking plans come back to the Committee for approval if they are acceptable to the Commission. -8- Mr. Kee reviewed the project for the Commission, and noted that Staff is in concurrence with the Site and Architectural Review Committee's recommendation. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Kurt Anderson, applicant, presented an elevation showing the appearance of the project as it will appear along Duncanville Court. Additionally, he presented a conceptual revised parking plan which would provide three below-grade parking spaces under each unit, as well as a defined storage area. The revised parking plans will not affect the landscaping coverage; will provide a ratio of 3.4 spaces per unit, from °'2.6 spaces; and provide a total of 45 spaces for a 13-unit development. Responding to a question regarding the possibility of changing this third underground parking space into additional living space, Mr. Kee noted that this development is under the Planned Development Permit which would provide Staff with a means of enforcement to correct this type of problem. M/S: Fairbanks, Dickson - That the public hearing on PD 85-10 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). M/S: Fairbanks, Christ - Discussion of Motion 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 with findings as indicated in the Staff Report recommending that the City Council approve PD 85-10, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report, with the additional condition that the revised parking plan come back to the Site and Architectural Approval for endorsement. Commissioner Olszewski noted that, because of the parking situation on Union Ave., he was vehemently against this development. This parking plan proposed by Mr. Anderson this evening is really innovative. Commissioner Christ felt that the applicant has provided a solution which addressed the expressed concerns, and he will be voting in favor of the motion. Commissioner Dickson commended the applicant for presenting a development that was not at the maximum density. -9- Chairman Kasolas stated that he would like to speak in favor of this type of development in all areas of the City. Commissioner Dickson noted that this particular area was already zoned for the higher density, and did not represent a General Plan or zone change. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Christ, Olszewski, Fairbanks, Dickson, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Perrine Motion for recommendation for approval passes (5-0-1). V 85-04 Continued public hearing to consider the Norman, R. application of Mr. Richard Norman for a variance to the sideyard setback requirement to allow the construction of a carport approximately 1 foot from the side property line on porperty known as 1030 S. San Tomas Aquino Rd. in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. ---- Mr. Kee reviewed this application, noting that this item was continued from the meeting of December 10, 1985 at the request of the applicant. In September of this year, Staff observed a carport being constructed on the subject property without permits. In addition, this structure failed to meet the sideyard setback requirement of 5 feet. Staff sent the owner a letter informing him of the violation and at this time he is .applying for a variance to the sideyard setback requirement. The carport is constructed approximately 1 foot from the side property line whereas a 5 foot setback is required. In order to approve a variance, the applicant must demonstrate that the hardship was not self-imposed and that the property itself is unique. Staff is of the opinion that in this case the hardship was self-imposed as a result of constructing the structure without permits. The applicant ` already has a single car garage on the property, thus satisfying the parking standard. Also, it appears that there is adequate room in the rear of the lot where a carport or garage could be constructed while conforming to all setback requirements. For these reasons, Staff cannot support the request. Chairman Kasolas opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. -10- Mr. Robert Morton, 2575 Dickson Dr., Santa Clara, appeared before the ,- ~~ Commission to represent the applicant, Mr, Norman. Mr. Morton reviewed the history of this proposal at length, explaining that in August of this year Mr. Norman talked with Mr. Haley in the Planning Office regarding plans for constructing a carport to be used for restoring antique cars. The size of the carport is necessary for the type of work to be done. Mr. Haley informed Mr. Norman that a variance was needed, and that his chances were "none at all". Mr. Norman went home and proceeded to build the carport--not with the intent to do something clandestine, but to commence the use of his property and to do work on the cars. Mr. Norman was then informed by Mr. Woodworth of the Planning Office that the structure would have to be removed or he would have to apply for a variance. Mr. Morton continued that there are procedural problems involved, and with the recommended findings to the Planning Commission. The policy throughout the State is to accept the structure as a built dwelling, impose double fees, and issue a permit. Mr. Woodworth was asked, in a meeting with he and Mr. Seligmann on January 10, if this would be a workable solution to the delimma. Mr. Woodworth said that this would not be possible because the structure would still not be in compliance with 'the City's setback requirements. Mr. Norman has applied for a variance to do something different from the ordinance. Mr. Woodworth said that Mr. Norman could not have a variance because the structure was built without permits. The issue is one of landlock. Mr. Morton continued that if the applicant is permitted a review and determination of application on its merit, aside from being built without ~ permit, the issue can be decided on its own. If the permit situation is reviewed on its own merit, it can be resolved. The hardship is when the ordinance itself becomes oppressive to the merits on which it is applied for. Mr. Morton continued that covered parking space and parking space behind " it, indicated under finding #2, does nothing for the intended use of the property by the owner. Under finding #3 there is a reference to place the carport in the back of the house. Mr. Norman would have to construct a concrete driveway of 50 feet or more, as well as drainage mitigations, which would be very expensive. Regarding the angle of the house--the angling of this particular structure is different than others in that it results in the front corner is 1 foot from the structure, but the rear is almost 4 feet from the property line. The principal problem of reduction would result in not being able to use the property. The history of the City in dealing with sideyard setbacks brought to variance applications has been one of approval rather than denial, with 6 approvals in the past couple of years. He noted the approved variance for a housing addition to 2 feet from the property line because of Santa Clara Valley Water District, with a finding that the configuration of the property was unique. Mr. Morton asked, during the meeting with Mr. Seligmann and Mr. Woodworth, if Mr. Norman would be served with a stop work order, if the structure was ^~ found to be unsafe, if the use imperiled the safety of anyone, or if the -11- ! a detriment to the community. Mr. Woodworth answered "no" to all ', these questions during the meeting. Why was the locking situation allowed ~- to continue? Regarding the uniqueness of the property, Mr. Morton continued, Staff contends that the property is not unique. The property has a 12 foot easement along the south property line. By contract, the owner is prohibited from usage or building upon the easement or 4 feet from it. An amount of 16 feet x 105 feet dramatically cuts into the usable property. Mr. Morton continued that the Commission has received a letter from Kevin Smith, the immediate neighbor, stating he has no objections and enjoys a measure of privacy from the construction of the carport. The measurable amount of vacant land left on the property was approximately a little over 7,000 sq.ft. according to the Planning Office; however., the correct computation is 8,400 sq.ft. for the lot, less 1,680 sq.ft. for the easement, less the square footage covered by the house--leaving approximately 1,520 sq. ft. Various other considerations bring the width of the lot down to 55 feet. In looking at other structures in the area, there are 13 structures which are built less than 5 feet from the property line. In a four block radius, his count was 54 residences. What we have here, Mr. Morton noted, is the rule rather than the exception-- which is why Mr. Norman did what he did. Mr. Morton stated that he did not think Mr. Haley's stand was correct. i Commissioner Christ stated that when the Site and Architectural Review Committee reviewed the variance application, they were not looking at it - as something in violation of the code, and he believed Mr. Morton to be incorrect in believing this. Commissioner Christ continued that at the Site Committee meeting, Mr. Norman made comment that he had built this knowing he was doing so incorrectly because he knew he couldn't build it where he wanted, so he intentionally built it where he did, as he did. Mr. Morton indicated that it was not something he had. said, but rather Mr. Woodworth--that the hardship is self-imposed as a result of constructing the structure without permits. Commissioner Christ reiterated that the Site Committee reviewed this application from a variance standpoint only. Chairman Kasolas stated that the Commission is holding a public hearing on this matter, at this time., with respect to whether or not a variance should be granted to Mr. Norman. No decision. will be made on this issue at this time, nor was any decision made at an earlier time. A decision will be made only upon conclusion of the public hearing. Mr. Morton responded that the reality is that the City is telling his client that he can't get a permit because of a setback rule, and he~-can't get a variance because of no building permit. Chairman Kasolas noted that Staff is making a recommendation to the Commission. This recommendation is considered by the Commission and the -12- City Council, and used as information in making an independent judgement. Chairman Kasolas asked Mr. Morton why be believed this variance should be granted. Mr. Morton stated that the variance should be granted because it promotes hardships on the applicant. The structure cannot be considered detrimental to the community; there is not evidence that this structure will imperil anyone; it takes nothing from the City; it is a lawful use of the property; and the variance is something Mr. Norman is entitled to. M/S: Fairbanks, Olszewski - That the public hearing on V 85-04 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). fli~~nSSinn Responding to a question regarding events of the meeting between himself, Mr. Woodworth, the applicant, and Mr. Morton, Mr. Seligmann stated that if further testimony was needed regarding this meeting it would be appropriate to re-open the public hearing. Mr. Seligmann continued that he did not know what position the Commission is going to take. Before them is a factual question of whether or not there is some uniqueness of Mr. Norman's lot that imposes a hardship upon that lot--a uniqueness that is not characteristic of lots in that vicinity. Mr. Kee stated that he takes exception to a number of statements made by Mr. Morton. The issue is a structure that was constructed in an area that is not allowed by the zoning ordinance and is in violation of that ordinance. It is not Staff who approves variances, but rather it is the Commission. It is up to Mr. Norman, or Mr. Morton, to demonstrate to the Commission what the hardship is. It is not up to Staff to demonstrate why the applicant cannot have a variance. Commissioner Dickson stated that he felt that the Commission has gone out of its way to make sure the applicant has been heard. Unfortunately, this does not look like something that is unique, but rather self-imposed. As pointed out by Staff, the applicant could construct the carport on a different location of the lot. Commissioner Christ noted that, in the same regard, the full Commission was not given the benefit of the Site Committee discussion. It came out during the Site Committee meeting that the applicant could have built elsewhere, but chose to construct the carport where he did; and, that he was aware of what he could and could not do at this time. M/S: Fairbanks, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt the findings indicated in the Staff Report, and deny V 85-04. M/S: Dickson, Olszewski - That finding #1 in the Staff Report be changed to read "Hardship is self-imposed since the lot is not unique." Amendment accepted by makers of the original motion. , -13- Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Christ,. Olszewski, Fairbanks, Dickson, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: None. ABSENT: Commissioners: Perrine. biotion for denial of V 85-04 carries with vote of 5-0-1. Chairman Kasolas advised the applicant of his right to appeal, noting that he has ten days in which to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. Said appeal should be addressed to the City Clerk and point out where, in the applicant's opinion, the Commission erred in their findings. The Commission recessed at 10:05 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m. MISCELLANEOUS MM 85-26 Continued application of Mr. James ~ ~ Rueter, J. Rueter for a modification to approved plans to make exterior alterations to an --- existing building and to convert a portion of the building from storage use to office use on property known as 155 E. Campbell Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. M/S: Fairbanks, Dickson - That MM 85-26 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 1986 at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). MM 85-29 Continued application of Mr. Helmut Dombrow, H. Dombrow for a modification to allow the construction of an automobile spray booth in the parking area of an existing automobile garage on property known as 238 Curtner Ave. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. Dombrow noted that he submitted revised plans last week; and briefly explained the history of his request, noting that it is a result of a letter from the Fire Department. He stated his agreement with a continuance. -14- M/S: Fairbanks, Dickson - That MM 85-29 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 1986. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). SA 85-51 Sign application of Mr. Frank Fragomeni, Fragomeni, F. on behalf of Tenant Signs, for property known as 2217 S. Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval. Commissioner Olszewski noted that he thought the existing 7-11 sign is a hazard in this particular parking lot, and he felt it might be better to deal with one sign for the whole property. M/S: Fairbanks, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt findings as indicated in the Staff Report, and approve SA 85-48, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report (attached hereto). Motion carried with a vote of 4-1-1, with Commissioner Olszewski voting "no", and Commissioner Perrine being absent. SA 85-52 Sign application of Mr. James Slette- Slettedahl, J. dahl, on behalf of The Video Place, for property known as 1590 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee expressed a concern with the size, location, and number of signs; therefore, this application is being presented to the Commission without recommendation of the Committee. The applicant is of the opinion that this is a unique location, and would like to address the Commission. Mr. Jim Slettedahl, applicant, noted that the building is blocked by San Jose Camera, and the signs are not readable from Winchester Blvd. because of the lettering style. He continued that he understands the Commission's concerns about readerboard signs; however, he does not feel that " explicit-type posters should be in his shop window, and he would rather just list the movie title. He asked. that the Commission allow him to _ replace the two existing signs on the roof with the store name and a readerboard. -15- Commissioner Olszewski commented that he did not like being "ambushed" by movie posters when passing a video store. The posters tend to stay up for ____ a long time and detract from an area. He liked the idea of a readerboard for this use. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she would like. to see the item continued so that the applicant might come back with a new proposal, noting that the basic concept of a signing ordinance is for identification--not advertising; and, she did not like to readerboard. Chairman Kasolas asked Mr. Slettedhal if he would like a continuance. Mr. Slettedhal responded that he would like a decision this evening. He felt that posters are not the best way to advertise, and should be kept inside the store; however, he could not see any other alternative to let people know what is in the store except for a readerboard. Mr. Slettedhhl noted that he would mount the readerboard to the roof if this is permissible. M/S: Fairbanks, Dickson - That the Planning Commission adopt the findings discussed in the Staff Report and deny SA 85-52 as presented. Motion carried with a vote of 4-1-1, with Commissioner Olszewski voting "no", and Commissioner Perrine being absent. Chairman Kasolas advised the applicant of the appeal procedure. SA 86-01 Application of Bakers Square for appro- Bakers Square val of a freestanding sign on property known as 1461 W. Campbell Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The application is coming to the Commission with no Committee recommendation because the Committee was unable to clearly identify the colors or the actual size of the sign. He noted that the proposed sign height is 10-1/2 feet. Commissioner Olszewski added that the Site Committee did enjoy the lower portion of the sign and the visibility that it provides for people entering the parking lot. Mr. John Law, Ad-Art Sign Co., explained that they are proposing to replace an existing monument sign with a sign having a face footage-of 52 sq.ft. Visibility along Campbell Ave. is such that the company feels it is necessary for additional height, above the existing sign. The colors are dark brown for the cabinet, with bright yellow for the fascia, burgundy background, and white lettering. -16- Commissioner Fairbanks noted that the tenants in this shopping center may -' be concerned with this second freestanding sign; and, she would like to see something less imposing, and lower in height. Commissioner Christ indicated that the proposed sign is within the height limitations if this restaurant was a separate building; however, it is within a shopping center, so the regulations speak to the frontage of the building. And, if the building is looked at as part of the shopping center, the sign footage would also be in excess of that allowable under the ordinance. Responding to a question regarding visibility, Mr. Helms stated that Staff is of the opinion that this sign, if located in the same location as the existing sign, should not present a visibility problem with the additional height. Commissioner Dickson asked Mr. Kee if, in Staff's opinion, the proposed sign meets the sign code. Mr. Kee indicated that it does meet the code. M/S: Dickson, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission adopt the findings indicated in the Staff Report, and approve SA 86-01 as presented in the alternate plans presented by the _ applicant at this evening's meeting, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report. Motion carried with a vote of 4-1-1, with Commissioner Olszewski voting "no", and Commissioner Perrine being absent. R 85-05 Application of Mr. Shawn Hailey for a MM 84-26 reinstatement of an approved minor modi- Hailey, S. fication to allow the remodel and expansion of_an existing industrial building on property known as 50 Curtner Ave. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial ) Zoning District. M/S: Dickson, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission reinstate its approval of MA! 84-26, subject to previous conditions of approval. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). * * * - -17- Request Request of Alcanco Corp. to place a Alcanco "canbank" in the Kirkwood Plaza Shopping Center, located at the southwest corner of W. Campbell Ave. and San Tomas Aquino Rd. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Chairman Kasolas stated that there may be a remote chance of conflict of interest on his part, and turned the gavel over to Commissioner Fairbanks. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval, but feels that the locations of the canbank should be moved down between the next drive towards the gas station because the proposed location is the most used egress/ingress for the shopping center. Commissioner Fairbanks asked about landscaping for the canbank location. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the Planning Commission approve the placement of the "canbank", subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report, and with the added condition that the final location of the canbank be approved by Staff. Motion carried with a vote of 4-0-1-1, with Commissioner Perrine being absent, and Commissioner Kasolas abstaining due to a possible conflict of interest. Referral Referral from the City Council regarding a cat boarding facility as a permitted use in the C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Woodworth reviewed this request, noting that Staff is of the opinion that cat boarding would be similar to an animal hospital or pet clinic, and would be an acceptable use in the C-2-S zoning district with a use permit. By using the use permit procedure, notice will be served to surrounding property owners and the operation can be thoroughly reviewed, with the use permit being revoked should a nuisance occur. Commissioner Olszewski asked what agency would be responsible for looking after the necessary sanitary disposal problems. Mr. Maurice Martin, applicant, noted that the facility operates with standard disposal procedures, sealing waste in plastic bags for regular garbage pickup. Responding to questions from the Commission, Mr. Martin indicated that a planned facility would provide a few large caged areas for the purpose of exercising the animals. -18- M/S: Dickson, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution determining that cat boarding is a use which may be compatible to other uses in the C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District, and add it to the list of uses allowed with a Use Permit. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). SA 85-51 Continued sign application of Mr. Mukuno, D. Douglas biukuno for property known as 2970 S. Winchester Blvd. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. M/S: Dickson, Fairbanks - That SA 85-51 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 1986 in that revised plans have not been submitted. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). TS 85-09 Devland Const. Co. Tentative Subdivision Map - Lands of Devland Construction Co. - 286 & 290 Sunnyoaks Ave. - APN 406-09-12, 13 M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission find the proposed map to be in accord with the General Plan; and that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve this tentative subdivision map, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report. Motion carried with a vote of 3-2-1, with Commissioners Dickson and Fairbanks voting "no", and Commissioner Perrine being absent. Commissioners Dickson and Fairbanks noted their vote was due to the high density of the subject project. * ,r R 85-03 Application of Mr. Leslie Pelio for a S 84-22 reinstatement of previously approved Pelio, L. plans to construct an industrial building on property known as 1587 & 1599 Dell Ave. in a CM=B (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District. -19- M/S: Dickson, Christ - Staff Report Staff Report M/S: Dickson, Fairbanks - That. the Planning Commission reinstate this approval for a one year period, subject to previous conditions of approval. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). Staff Report regarding the review of trees in the City of Campbell. Staff Report reviewing the City of Campbell's parking standards. That the Planning Commission accept both Staff Reports. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSION M/S: Dickson, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution commending Commissioner Toshach for his service on the Commission. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1). Chairman Kasolas asked commissioners to contact him or the secretary regarding committee assignments for 1986. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. APPROVED: George C. Kasolas Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: "Canbank" SITE ADDRESS: 1600 W. Campbell Ave. Kirkwood Shopping Center APPLICANT: Alcanco P. C. Mtg.: 1-I4-86 1. Prior to installation, applicant to: A. Obtain property owner's signature authorizing location on property and landscaping; and submit evidence of this to the Planning Department. B. Obtain an necessary electrical or other permits from the Building Department. All electrical lines shall be underground. 2. That Planning Commission to review the use within six months of installation. 3. Approval of the "Canbank" may be revoked if, after a hearing, the Planning Commission finds that the use is creating a nuisance as a result of trash accumulation, vandalism, or other reasons. 4. Area surrounding the "Canbank" to be kept free of trash at all times. 5. This approval shall be void one year from date of Planning Commission approval unless machine is installed and all conditions complied with. 6. Location of "Canbank" on site to be approved by the Planning Staff prior to issuance of necessary permits. "' EDWIN J. MYERS ARCHITECT ~.:: ARCHITECTURE PLANNING 10 January 1996 City of Campbell Planning Commission 70 N. First Street Campbell, California 95008 Re: Butera~Farnsworth Apartments 68 Sunnyside Avenue File No. 585-18 Dear Honorable Chairman and Members of the Commission: I would like to request that the referenced project application be continued to the February 11, 1986 4 meeting so that further evaluation of the project can be made. Very truly yours, J. Michael Horton, A.I.A. cc: Monica. Farnsworth _ D ~~~~d~ JAN ~.~1986 CITY OF CAMP6El.l. PI:ANNING DEPARTMIENT. 10601 SOUTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD, SUITE 105 • CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014. 408-252-0897 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 85-19 APPLICANT: Pefferle, D. SITE ADDRESS: 197 E. Hamilton Ave. P.C. MTG. 1-14-86 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 Planning Director prior to application for a building permit. 3. Wall plan indicating location and design details of masonry wall to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Directoz prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $1,000.00 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. 5. Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PG&E utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the Planning Director. 6. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 7. 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. 8. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. 9. 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. 10. 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). CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 85-19 APPLICANT: Pefferle, D. SITE ADDRESS: 197 E. Hamilton Ave. PAGE 2. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FILE NO. S 85-19 APPLICANT: PEFFERLE, D. SITE ADDRESS: 197 E. HAMILTON AVE 1. The addition will match the existing building and will create an aesthetically pleasing development. 2. The addition is setback 14 feet from the residences to the rear to provide adequate light and air to them. 3. The following measures have been taken to provide privacy to the residences to the rear: A. Windows in addition with a 3 feet 8 inch sill height. B. Trees planted between the residential and office properties. C. A 6 foot masonry wall between the office and residential property. 4. Adequate on-site parking has been provided for the office building. 5. Mature, attractive landscaping exists on the site and will remain. 6. The project will not be detrimental to the health or safety of persons living in the area or the City as a whole. : # ~77Z ,~~ . O ~~~~~ Management Mr. Arthur A. Kee Planning Director City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA. 95008 RE: MM 85-26 - 155 E. Campbell Avenue Dear Mr. Kee: 3175 De La Cruz Bivd. Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408) 727-1004 January 9, 1986 In furtherance of our meeting on January 7th, Mr. James E. Rueter requests a continuance of the Planning Commission's consideration of the above referenced application from Janu- ary 14, 1986 to January 28, 19.86. The request for continu- ance is based on our need for additional time to accomplish the meeting between, you, the city attorney and Mr. Rueter for the purpose of working out the details of a proposed agreement on the parking issue. Your courtesy and cooperation in this matter are greatly appreciated. Yours very truly, v `' L. Blake Baldwin " Vice President LBB:gc JAN 131986 CITY OF CAMPBELL PIJ-NNINO DEPARTMENT FILE NO.: SA $5-48 ADDRESS: 2217 S. BASCOM AVE. APPLICANT: FRAGOMENI, F. P.C. MTG.: 1-14-86 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. The proposed wall signs comply with Section 21.68.090 t4) of the sign ordinance, which regulates signing for commercial uses. 2. The proposed signing allows reasonable identification of the building tenants. 3. The proposed signage preserves the visual quality of the City and is architecturally compatible. FILE NO.: SA 85-48 ADDRESS: 2217 S. BASCOM AVE. APPLICANT: FRAGODlENI, F. P.C. MTG.: 1-14-86 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Applicant to zemove wall sign (3' x 16') reading "The Lomas & Nettleton Company". 2. Proposed sign cabinets to be painted dark brown to match building trim. 3. Tenant and/or applicants to provide sign panel design and colors for approval of Planning Director. 4. Applicant to secure any necessary building and electrical permits prior to placement of signs. FILE NO.: SA 86-01 LOCATION: 1461 W. CAMPBELL AVE. APPLICANT: BAKERS SQUARE P.C. MTG.: 1-14-86 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS 1. The proposed sign will replace an existing freestanding sign. 2. The sign meets the height and size requirements of the sign code. 3. There will be no wall signs on the building. 4. The restaurant is located in a large shopping center and needs the freestanding sign for exposure. K ~ CONDITIONS OF APPROV M 64-26 APPLICANT: AJ-ILEY, S. _12/11/84 SITE ADDRESS: SO CURTNER AVE. P.C. MTG. 11/27/84 ~ 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 Califor;lia. 1. Revised east and west elevations and site plan to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee and/or the Planning Commission prior to application for a building permit. 2. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in zed on the plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. 3. Landscaping plan indicating type and sire 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. 4. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of rear solid masonry wall to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of S2,000 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed with the Planning Department prior to application for a building permit. 6. Applicant to summit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PGiE utility (transformer) boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if boxes are above ground) for approval of the Planning Director. 7. Applicant to submit a letter to the Planainq Department, satisfactory to the City Attorney, prior to application for building permit, limiting the nse of the property as follows: 7,774 sq.ft. of office use; and 4,234 sq.ft. of industrial/warehouse use. 8. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 9. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. 10. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs oz bumper guards. 11. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. 12. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan cheek shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables. etc. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: MM 84-26 PAGE 2 OF 3 13. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Siqn __ Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by Planning and Building Departments (Section 21.68.030 of ~ , the .Campbell Municipal Code). _ 14. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal 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. 15. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Onless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. 16. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. 17. The applicant is hereby notified that the property fs 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 oz removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 i 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. FIRE DEPARTMENT 18. Recommendation for approval only with retrofit of sprinkler system. (Sect. 10.309 (b) G UF'C) 19. Because the total square footage with the addition exceeds 10,000 sq.ft., an automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for the entire structure. System shall be monitored by a central station alarm company. 20. Access driveway shall be posted as a fire lane with parking prohibited except in marked spaces. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 21. Dedicate an additional 5 feet across the frontage. 22. Remove the north westerly 8 ft. x 11 ft, portion of the existing building as shown in red on site plan. t • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: AII+! 84-26 PAGE 3 OF 3 ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT - 23. Applicant to record an easement allowing access between the siotel and the subject bulling and to allow the shared use of ten parking spaces on the motel site, Easement to meet the approval of the City Attorney and be so written that it cannot be given up without the approval of the City of Campbell. All shared spaces to be properly signed to indicate joint use. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 24. No comments. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 84--22 APPLICANT: Riedinger, M. (Design t Engineering Systeuns) SITE ADDRESS: 1587 i 1599 Dell Ave. P. C. MTG. 12-11-84 The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to ^eet the folloNing 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 colors and materials; window treatment; screening of roof equipment on existing and proposed buildings; prior to application for a building permit. 2. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on the plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. 3. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant waterfal, and location of irrigation system to be subsitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of (5,000.00 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. 6. Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PGbE utility (transforuuer) boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and screening o f boxes are above ground) for approval of the Planning Director. 7. Applicant to subunit a letter to the Panning Department, satisfactory to the City Attorney, liwiting the use of the property as follows: 16,530 sq. ft. warehousing/manufacturing use and 31,200 sq. ft. office use - prior to application for a building permit B. All oechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 9. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. 10. A11 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 bus~per guards. li. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS ~ 84-22 APPLICANT: Riedinger, M. (Design ~ Engineering Systeans) 5 I TE ADDRESS s 1597 ~ i 59'9 Del 1 Ave. P. C. MTG. 12- i i-84 12. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including Mater, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. 13. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and persft issued by Planning and Building Departments (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code). 14. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Cade stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be ^ade with Breen Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all con~ercial, business, industrial, aoanufacturing, and construction establishments. 15. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. -- All enclosures to be constructed at grade level and have a level area adJacent to the trash enclosure area to service these ' containers. 16. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. 17.~The applicant is hereby notified that the property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. All existing structures shall be secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed frori the property. Sect . 11. 201 i 1 i. 414, 1979 Ed. Uni forA F ire Code. PUBLIC i~IORKS DEPARTMENT 19. Process and file a parcel sap to combine the two lots. 19. Participate financially in the amount of 124,000 toward the construction of a future traffic signal at Hacienda/Dell Ave. intersection. 20. Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees, .and post surety to relocate driveway and any other work in the public right-of-way. CONDITIONS OF APPROVALi 84-22 APPLICANTS Riedinger, M. Design ~ Engineering Systems) SITE ADDRESS: 1587 E 1599 Dal l Ave. P. C. MTG. ~ 12-11-84 CONDITIONS OF APPROVALS S 84-22 ' APPLICANTS Riedinger~ M. SITE ADDRESS: 1587 ~ 1599 Dell Ave. PAGE 3 FIRE_DEPARTMENT 21. Provide autowatfc sprinkler systems for both buildings. Systems shall be monitored by Central Station alarm company. 22. Provide two on-site fire hydrants ad3acent to north and south driveways. 23. Parking shall be prohibited in driveways other than in designated parking spaces. Signs shall be posted along driveways reading 'Fire Lane -- No Parking." BUILDING DEPARTMENT 24. No co~ranent s at t h i s t i ne.