Loading...
PC Min 10/22/1985PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 1985 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, Perrine, Christ, Toshach, Olszewski, Dickson, Fairbanks; Planning Director A. A. Kee, Principal Planner Phil Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, Acting City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Dickson, Christ: That the minutes. of the Planning Commission meeting of October 8, 1985 be approved, with the following amendment: Page 11, Para. 7 - change "zoning" to "density. Page 13, Para. 4 - change "zoning" to "density". Motion carried with a vote of 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Toshach abstaining because of absence. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee noted that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. Additionally, Mr. Kee referred to a memorandum from the Building Official regarding asphalt driveway specifications for residential developments. PUBLIC HEARINGS MM 85-09 Continued public hearing to consider Condit, E.B. the application of Rev. E. B. Condit, on behalf of Free Will Baptist Church, for a modification to a previously approved plan to allow construction of a garage and office building on an existing church site on properties known as 106 S. Third St. and 157' W. Rincon Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. -2- Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval as redlined; with the redlining indicating changes in building materials (stucco to match existing building) and roof lines. Mr. Kee stated that Staff is also recommending approval, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Rev. E. B. Condit appeared to answer questions the Commission might have, and apologized for not being at the Site Review meeting. M/S: Kasolas, Dickson - That the public hearing on MM 85-09 be closed, since no one else wished to speak. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Olszewski, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve MM 85-09, subject to conditions attached hereto. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Olszewski, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. GP 85-02 Public hearing to consider the applica- Pinn Bros. tion of Pinn Bros. Construction to amend _ the Land Use Element of the General Plan from Low Density Residential (less than 6 units per gross acre) to Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 units per gross acre) on property known as 1164-1178 Smith Ave. Mr. Kee reviewed this application which was continued from October 8, 1985, noting that conditions cannot be placed on a General Plan amendment; however, the applicant has indicated his intention to develop the subject property at a density of 9 units per gross acre. Based on the Commission's past actions and City Council policy, Staff is recommending denial. Additionally, at the Chairman's request, Mr. Kee briefly explained the procedure necessary for the filing of a negative declaration. Commissioner Dickson asked about the times that the Commission is allowed to consider General Plan changes. -3- Mr. .Kee responded that General Plan. applications made be heard by the Commission four times a year. Applications may be City-initiated, or property-owner initiated. Chairman Fairbanks asked that a let~er from Mr. Don L. Torgus~n spedkir~g in favor of this amendment, be entered into the record (attached hereto). There was brief discussion regarding the zoning and density surrounding the subject property. Commissioner Toshach stated that he has reviewed. the minutes for this item carefully, as well as spending time with the Planning Director reviewing the Staff Comment Sheet from the last meeting. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. James Scelline, 1182 Smith Ave., spoke in favor of the requested General Plan amendment, noting that he is surrounded by higher density. Mr. .Scelline believed that he should also be included in the change for higher density. He noted that he is also speaking for Mr. and Mrs. Snider, property owners of 1186 Smith Ave. Mrs. Pat McCullough, 771 Old Orchard Rd., stated she did not see how a negative declaration could be filed on this application, since anything put on this street would affect the existing standard street. She continued that there .are other condominiums in the area still for sale, and questioned the need for this type of development; there should be a traffic light at the corner of San Tomas Aquino Road and Elam Ave. as a condition of approval; and, recommended denial of this application. Mr. Kee reiterated that there are no .actual development plans at this time. When development plans are submitted, there may be a need for an EIR. Regarding parking, it may turn out that on-site parking may relieve the on-street situation in the area. The parking would have. to satisfy the code requirements for this type of development. Mr. Al Pinn, 24.70 S. Winchester Blvd., stated that he is proposing to building 18 single family zero lot-line detached homes in .the $140,000 range. Mr. Pinn presented a petition containing 44 signatures in favor of the proposed change (attached hereto). Commissioner Toshach asked Mr. Pinn about possible restrictions on recreational vehicles for this proposed development. Mr. Pinn responded that he will be proposing 2-car garages with 2 tandem spaces in the driveway., as in the typical single family homes. Since it will be a single family development, there will be no provision for separate recreational vehicle storage similar to that provided in some condominium developments. Commissioner Perrine asked why the property could not be developed at it's current density from an economic standpoint. -4- Mr. Pinn explained that under the existing low density zoning the property might support 9-10 homes. With a construction cost of $85,000 per home, in addition to the cost of the property,-the cost of the finished homes would be approximately $180,000. This area will not bear this. price; there are probably not any single family homes in this area that would sell for more than $150,000. There is more of a need for 3/4 bedroom homes in the $140,000 price range. Commissioner Christ asked if it would be more feasible to build single family homes in this area if the whole neighborhood was improved--not just one piece of property. He noted his concern with piecemeal development. Mr. Pinn indicated that this would be the case--if a large area was done simultaneously; however, it cannot usually be done as a whole. Commissioner Perrine asked about the alternatives with combining more lots. Mr. Ree stated that the Commission could certainly take a position on the three lots to the west of the subject site and make a recommendation. Mr. Kee added that Staff would recommend that if the Council approved this change, Staff would come back with a recommendation to change the other lots. Mr. Pinn noted that he would like to see where the Council stood on this issue. He would prefer that the lots be looked at individually; and, if the Council looked favorably on his application, then the others could follow. Coamiissioner Kasolas noted that several of the adjoining property owners in the audience this evening have consistently requested that the higher density be restored to their properties. Mr. Doug Almack, 1154 Smith Ave., spoke in favor of the higher density. The area is not being improved and is in need of attention. M/S: Toshach, Olszewski - That the public hearing on GP 85-02 be closed, there being no one else wishing to speak. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Discussion Commissioner Olszewski commented that this application is presenting an opportunity to improve this area. Commissioner Christ agreed that there is a need for improvement in this area. In view of that need, and the requests of the adjoining property owners, he would very much support studies being done toward making changes for more than just this one piece of property. Commissioner Christ continued that he did not feel that he had all the information at this time, that additional information was needed because of traffic impacts. -5- Commissioner Dickson also agreed that this area should be looked at further and a study be done. If this particular application is granted, it is a case of "spot zoning" with no way to stop it. Commissioner Dickson continued that he felt there is something higher than economics involved, and that is the need to see harmonious development in this City. Commissioner Kasolas stated his agreement with Commissioner Olszewski--this is an opportunity to improve this area. He continued that this is the first time there has been such a response. from a neighborhood. He noted his disagreement with the San Tomas Findings, in that he has lived in the area for 25 years--and it needs help. Commissioner Kasolas felt that deferring this item to do a study was just a bureaucratic way of saying "no". At this point the options are to do nothing, to do a study, to make a motion, and to make a recommendation that the adjoining area be studied if a motion to approve this application is passed. Commissioner Kasolas concluded by speaking in favor of good controlled development. M/S: Kasolas, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this project; and, that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve GP 85-02. Discussion Commissioner Dickson disagreed that the only way to improve the San Tomas Area is by increasing densities. Commissioner Christ again agreed with the concerns expressed, however, he felt that if this General Plan change was made before all the necessary information was obtained, it would be a mistake. Information was not available on whether the streets can be widened in this area. Commissioner Christ continued that this information could be obtained in an expeditious manner, with Staff preparing a report on the streets and what kind of improvements can be made and what the streets can handle. Commissioner Toshach respectfully disagreed with Commissioner Christ. He felt that he had all the necessary information to make a recommendation on the General Plan change. The general condition of this area is clear, as well as the economic possibilities. Commissioner Toshach stated that he felt he could make a sound judgement on the issue; and, he is also in favor of the adjoining properties being looked at. Commissioner Dickson pointed out that the submitted petitions were signatures from Smith Ave., not from Lovell Ave. He felt the residents on Lovell should be aware of what is being proposed. Chairman Fairbanks stated that she would be speaking against the motion. She believed that the San Tomas Findings were appropriate for this area. She agreed that the area does need improvement, however, she did not feel -6- that such improvements must come through increased density. She continued that if we value low density, we will find a way to deal with the economics. Chairman Fairbanks added that she is very concerned about the traffic in the area, and although one project may not have an impact, an accumulation of projects will have an impact. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Olszewski, Toshach NOES: Commissioners: Christ, Dickson, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Motion for recommendation of approval carries (4-3-0). M/S: Kasolas, Toshach - That the properties adjoining 1164-1178 Smith Ave. to the west and due east on the southerly side of Smith Ave. be considered for a General Plan amendment. Discussion Commissioner Dickson stated he would be opposing the motion in that he felt the entire area should be looked at, and that all the property owners should be heard. __ Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Olszewski, Toshach NOES: Commissioners: Christ, Dickson, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Motion carries with a vote of 4-3-0. M/S: Kasolas, Toshach - That the Planning Commission propose that the City Council review the San Tomas Policy in detail with regard to the total area. nt~~,~set~r Commissioners Dickson and Christ noted that it has already been suggested that this issue be placed on a Study Session agenda. AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Toshach NOES: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Olszewski, Dickson, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None. --- Motion fails with a vote of 2-5-0. -7- Commissioner Kasolas asked that Public Works review, in detail, the traffic circulation element for this particular area for the next meeting, including information on how we plan to solve the north/south arterial problems, especially in light of Hwy. 85 and the impact on this area. Mr. Helms noted that Staff's guide for circulation in the entire City is the City Council policy and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Commissioner Toshach recommended that the Commission ask Staff to recommend what area should be .reviewed. Mr. Kee indicated that Staff would come back to the Commission with some alteratives for consideration at the next meeting. Commissioner Christ noted his concern with the substandard street improvements in the area of Smith all the way down to Elam. Can those streets be developed in a manner that will allow increased density in the area. Commissioner Toshach stated that his pointed question regarding recreational vehicles was not idle, and he will be doing as much as he can to eliminate the problem in the community. ZC 85-08 ~ Public hearing to consider the applica- Naderzad, K. tion of Mr. R. Naderzad, on behalf of Devland Construction, for approval of a zone change from R-2-S (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development); and approval of plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of 12 townhomes on properties known as 286 & 290 W. Sunnyoaks Ave. Commissioner Kasolas reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The applicant has indicated that he is sensitive to the issues that were raised by the Site Committee and Staff, and is requesting a continuance to the next meeting in order to revise the project. Mr. Ree noted that Staff is in accord with the recommendation for continuance. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited auyo.~e ~.~ th` audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Kasolas, Perrine - That ZC 85-08 be continued to the Planning Commission of November 12, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -8- MISCELLANEOUS SA 85-33 Continued signing request of Mr. Om Rambo, 0. Kambo3 to allow construction of a freestanding sign on property known as 880 E. Campbell Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that Staff received a telephone communication from Mr. Kambo~ requesting a continuance in that another application is forthcoming. M/S: Christ, Kasolas - That the SA 85-33 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 26, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Commissioner Dickson felt that it should be noted that this item has been continued many times, and this should be the last continuance. UP 85-03 Six-month review of oriental billiards use - 2097 S. Bascom Ave. - C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the Staff Report on UP 85-03 be noted and filed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). INFORMATION ONLY Staff Report Staff Report regarding the placement of trailer on church properties. Commissioner Dickson expressed a concern with liability relating to safety issues when trailers are being used as classrooms. Mr. Kee indicated that any applications for this type of use are referred to the Fire Department for comment. M/S: Dickson, Perrine - Staff Report That the Planning Commission accept the Staff Report as presented. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Guidelines for choosing officers. Chairman Fairbanks felt that it is important that each commissioner serve on a rotating basis, according to tenure, to serve as Vice-Chairman and Chairman, however, this is not a written policy at this time. -9- Commissioner Toshach stated that he would certainly be willing to accept what is presented as a guideline; however, he has a problem with calling it a policy because policy indicates something that will be strongly ~ adhered to. Commissioner Christ thought that the guidelines are a good idea for new members,. and suggested that the word "over" be removed from the third paragraph. M/S: Toshach, Christ - Staff Report That the Planning Commission accept the guidelines as presented by Commissioner Dickson, with the removal of the word "over" from paragraph 3. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Setting date for City tour. Commissioner Kasolas noted that he would hope that emphasis would be on the areas of the City that need help. It was the consensus of the Commission that Sunday, November 10, 1985 at 1:00 p.m. should be set for this tour. Staff Report Information: O'Burn Court (S 85-13). It was the consensus of the Commission that this information be noted and filed. Staff Report Information.: Traffic -.Elam/Smith Area. Traffic - Hack/Audrey Area - Oral Report. Mr. Helms presented transparencies of the subject areas, and indicated that the area of concern on Linda Drive is being addressed by putting in a double line of raised dots which will be put in at the end of this week. Staff is opposed to raised medians in this situation because of the problems they cause. Regarding the Audrey/Hack area, Staff proposes to widen out a center strip with crosshatched markings and raised dots. Commission Dickson asked that Staff report on the success of these measures in six months. -10- Staff Report Planning Commission meeting of December 24, 1985 - possible cancellation - Oral -" Report. M/S: Dickson, Toshach - That the Planning Commission meeting of December 24, 1985 be cancelled due to the holiday season. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSIONERS Commission Toshach presented a form used by the City of San Jose for code enforcement, and proposed that something like this might be done in this City. Perhaps it should be presented in the Campbell Profile from time to time. It was the consensus of the Commission that Staff look over this form and come back to the Commission with a recommendation. There was discussion regarding policy changes and methods to affect such changes; and possible ways of delaying application to be able to look at a larger area to avoid appearance of piecemeal development. Commissioner Christ asked if Staff could provide information for an entire area, in addition to the specific property, when an application is received. ____ Commission Dickson felt that the General Plan amendment considered on this agenda should have been continued and the issue set for a study session. He felt that the Commission needs to hear from the whole area--not dust a few property owners. Commissioner Olszewski felt that this General Plan application was a catalyst for improvement in this particular area. Commissioners Christ and Kasolas asked Staff to prepare a report and possible recommendations concerning guest parking as it relates to townhomes/condominiums and apartments in that it is the belief that surrounding communities have requirements for guest parking that this City does not have. Commissioner Olszewski suggested that the newly adopted guidelines for electing officers be added to the Planning Commission handbook, and that the handbook be up-dated. City Attorney Bill Seligmann noted to the Commission, as a matter of information, that there is no legal basis for the Planning Commission to hold Executive Sessions. -11- ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m. APPROVED: JoAnn Fairbanks Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary - COr~IDITIO*;S or APPItoVAL: tt*i 85-09 APPLICAITT: E. B. Condit SITr A~~D^.ESS: 106 S. Third St. & 157 ~?. Rincon Ave. P.C. 2""G. 10-5-35 / 10-22-85 The ap?licant 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. P.evised elevations indicating change in building elevations per Architectural Advisor's recommendations to be submitted to the Plannin;; Department and approved by the Planninry Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor prior to application for a building permit. 2. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on the plans. Landscaping and fencing, shall he maintained in accordance with the approved plans. 3. Landscaping plan indicating tyre and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Com'nission prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $2,000.00 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. 7. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 8. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. 9. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell *~iunicipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bu^~per guards. 10. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. 11. Plans submitted to the BuildinP Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. CONDITIOI:S Or APP..^.OVAh: 2~1?i SS-09 APPLICANT: B. T>. Condit SITE ADDP.ESS : 106 S . Third St . & 157 t7. P~incon Ave . P.C. P:TG. 10-8-85 PAGE 2. I, 12. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. Igo sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by Planning and Building Departments (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell ;Municipal Code). 13. Ordinance Ito. 782 of the Campbell t•:unicipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. 14. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. 15. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. PUBLIC WORI:S DEPARTMENT No comment. BUILDING DEPARTMENT IJo comment . BUILDING DEPART:~IdT No comment. „ .-- I U /~ ` ~ v a.- \ r \\\1 ', . Don L. Torguson :. - ~ ~ Real Iatatc r~~~hraiscr _ - I1i13 1'I~-wrr (iar~icn ~.<llll' O S<ui .luyr. C:\ 4b~1`L4 O t4(IB- 4)78~H1•Lti October 22, 1985 ,ii .^ .. _ PLANNING G~Pln^Tt:'_C~lT TO: Members of the'Planning°Commission, City of Campbell SUBJECT: The application from Pinn Brothers Construction to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan from low density residential to low medium density residential on the property known as 1164-1178 Smith Avenue. '`I am the listing broker on the property at 1164-1178 Smith Avenue, which contains three parcels. The owner of the property is going to sell. The `current sale to Pinn Brothers Construction in contingent upon the property -- being rezoned to a higher density, as they cannot develop the property with the current zoning and make a profit. If Pinn Brothers Construction cannot developthe property under current zoning with their excellent track record, then it does not appear feasible for any other developer to develop it. The only other alternative to professional development is a buyer who needs a very large deep lot. Buyers in this category tend to be tradesmen who need a place to work on their equipment, store supplies, moonlighting mechanics, etc. The lots are too deep for single family residences with a large garden, and. too small for commi:rcial agriculture. The most logical user-buyers remaining are those who tend to cluter their properties. Though their activities ,may be illegal, it is extremely difficult to stop someone from cluttering their property in this manner. You can drive through any town and find cluttered yards wl~i~~h ere an eyesoar in any community. By their very existence it is apparent that these yards are difficult to eliminate, eventhough their current use may be illegal. I would strongly urge you to work with the Pinn Broters Construction plan, and find a solution that is acceptable to you and profitable for them. They are a local builder of good reputation. Several offers have been made on the subject property. It is unusual to find _. three lots side by side under one ownership in Campbell. The interest has been very high, but not one developer has wanted to buy with the current xc~ning. Each one has wanted it to be rezoned to higher density. This supports the --- fact that the property cannot be devloped under existing zoning, and be profitable for the developer. ~_e~~ r°~. rnr~ ~txcialicin~; in `i~uita (~rui l.uunly /O%Z 2- 'S ,~~ . Don L. Torguson 12e.~1 I~.st.~tc i11~Nrtikr 1(ili 1~ I~.wcr (i.~nlcii L.vic O ti.ui dak. Ci\ 51.51`I4 D (411R197R•RIYti -2- ~, The project proposed by Pinn Brothers Construction is very feasible. It is an improvement for the area. The houses would sell at the upper end of the market, would be appealing, and conform to the area. They would be a cluster home, which means there would be a small lot with each home, rather than a row of apartment-style condominiums, which would not conform to the area. The new fresh homes in the area would tend to improve the surrounding locale, and perhaps start a rejuvenation of the neighborhood. Respectfully, J - 1 ~`~"' ~~- U Don L. Torguson Slxci.ilizin~; in Santa Cruz C:uunty :`• ~Cr'c ~_ GUIDELINES FOR CHOOSING OFFICERS Commissioners serve on the Planning Commission at the pleasure of the City Council. Every Commissioner is qualified to be Chairman or Vice Chairman. A Commissioner has the right to decline such positions if that is a personal preference. The practice of the Planning Commission in the last few years when electing officers has been to select the most senior person, who has not previously held the position, to that position. The next senior person, who has not previously held the position, is then-nominated for Vice Chairman (and Chairman of Site and Architectural Review). ' The rotational practices need some .modification under two exceptions. First, when a Planning Commissioner has been on the Commission for an _~ extended time, and it has been six years since he has been Chairman, e his name should again be inserted in the seniority rotation for Vice Chairman and Chairman. Second, if the situation exists where the seniority practice would indicate a Planning Commissioner who has not been on the Commission a full year, it would be recommended that the practice not be followed. Regardless of what guidelines or past practices exist, it is still the right and duty of the Commission to make their choices known by nomination and majority vote. '-