Loading...
PC Min 02/26/1985PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES FEBRUARY 26, 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, Howard, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks; Planning Director A. A. Kee, Planner II Marty Woodworth, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney J. R. Dempster, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Howard, Perrine - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1985 be approved as submitted. Motion carried with a vote of 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Christ abstaining due to absence. INFORMATION FROM CITY ATTORNEY Mr. Dempster reported to the Commission that the policy initiated by the City Council regarding voting procedures is interpreted as follows: If a commissioner enters a meeting during or after discussion on an agenda item, the Council does not want the commissioner to vote on that item. The policy does not prohibit a commissioner from voting on an item if the commissioner missed discussion on the item at a previous meeting. Commissioner Dickson noted that he has not as yet received any information from the Council about this policy. Mr. Dempster noted that, on behalf of the Council, he is carrying the intent of the policy to the Commission. There was not a lengthy discussion of this issue during the Council meeting. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee reported that several items of communications have been received, each pertaining to specific items on the agenda, and would be discussed at the appropriate time. -2- ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 85-01 Application of Mr. Philip Schwimmer Schwimmer, P, for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of an industrial building on property known as 454 & 468 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The proposed industrial building will have a red brick veneer to improve the appearance; and, a wrought-iron gate is recommended for the trash enclosure. The Committee is recommending approval, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Chairman Fairbanks asked about the 24' height of the building, landscaping, and type of street improvements. Mr. Kee noted that this height is not unusual in an industrial zoning district. There is approximately 900 sq.ft. of the public right-of-way to be landscaped, and the street improvements are shown as standard. M/S: Howard, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission approve the -- Negative Declaration which has been prepared for S 85-01. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). That the Planning Commission approve S 85-01, subject to red-lining of plans and conditions of approval as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). S 85-02 Application of Mr. Lou Dorcich for Dorcich, L. approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of an office building on property known as 2065 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-3-S (Central Business) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Staff Comment Sheet indicates that there is too much floor space for the presented parking ratio. This concern has since been addressed with the reduction of floor space, thereby bringing the parking ratio into conformance with codes. The applicant has expressed a concern about making changes to the front of his -- building to accommodate a line of sight for traffic reasons, when eventually left-turn movements may be prohibited from his property--thereby making the change unnecessary. -3- Mr. Helms explained that Staff is just making the applicant aware that it is possible that left-turn movements may be prohibited at some time in the ~___ future. At this time, Staff would not be in favor of the provision for a median island; however, the situation is subject to change in the future. Mr. Kee stated that Staff is recommending approval of this application, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Responding to a question from Chairman Fairbanks regarding the building height and its relationship to adjacent properties, Commissioner Christ indicated that a good portion of the lower story of this building is parking, with the majority of office use being on the second floor. It is the opinion of the Site Committee that the building will fit into the area. M/S: Howard, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for S 85-02. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). That the Planning Commission approve ------- S 85-02, subject to redlining of plans and conditions of approval as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). PUBLIC HEARINGS PD 84-03 Continued public hearing to consider Kavanaugh, L. the application of Linda Kavanaugh, on behalf of Barry Swenson Builders, for approval of a Planned Development Permit; and, approval of plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the remodel of an existing building on property known as 600 E. Hamilton Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee; however, because there was confusion regarding the provided parking, the Committee felt it inappropriate to make a recommendation, and would defer to Staff for a report on the traffic/parking situation. Mr. Kee stated that Staff is recommending approval, subject to attached conditions to include the parking layout to come back to Staff for its approval. Commissioner Christ indicated that the warehouse portion of this use is quite large and very automated with few personnel. The Site Committee is of the opinion that with the additional parking changes as suggested, there will still be more than adequate parking. -4- Mr. Helms explained the conditions indicated under Public Works in the Staff Comment Sheet, noting that Staff had expressed two concerns about the traffic for this project. The first had to do with volumes and hours of truck delivery. The second concern was the ingress/egress on the site. The concern regarding volumes and hours is addressed with Condition 18, and would limit delivery hours to hours outside of peak commute time (namely, between 6-9 am and 4-6 pm on weekdays), with the intent being to control the movement of large trucks that would interfere with the traffic flow. The ingress/egress concern has been addressed by the submittal of revised on-site circulation plans which are acceptable to Staff. Commissioner Kasolas asked if the delivery .hours restrictions applied only to vehicles in excess of one axle. He felt that it might be appropriate to set out specific mitigation measures to avoid future misunderstandings. Commissioner Toshach asked for further explanation of the mitigation measures referred to under Condition 18. Mr. Helms stated that the Public Works Staff previously indicated that concerns regarding all delivery vehicles to and from the site would be satisfied with the restriction of delivery hours as stated above. The intent is to restrict the large trucks; however, Staff would like to be able to come back to the Commission for further enforcement measures if small delivery vehicles/vans become a problem. Commissioner Kasolas asked whether; if there was to be an expansion of retail activity at this site, that increased activity would automatically have to come back to the Commission for discussion, or does the statement in the Staff Report mean that the retail use could be stepped up at will, thereby increasing the intensity of use at this site, without Commission approval. Mr. Kee responded that Staff is of the opinion that the intensity of the building is not being increased from that previously approved. The retail use could continue at this location without coming back to the Commission or without changing the ordinance. Commissioner Toshach asked if there has been any construction done on this building without permits. Mr. Kee stated that inspections have been made by the Building .Official and members of the Planning Staff. There is a wall and some openings in the building that do not have permits at this time. However, Staff would have to ask the Building Official for specific information. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Linda Kavanaugh, applicant, stated that there are building permits and -`' final inspections on the site, with the exception of the front wall which extends out from the building. Regarding the traffic, Apple Computer has agreed to make every effort to limit it -- traffic usually leaves the building between 1-3 pm. -5- Mr. Danny O'Neill, 1949 N. Bechelli, Redding, asked about Condition No. 6 pertaining to the allowable uses of the building. Chairman Fairbanks indicated that this condition is included in the Staff Comment Sheet and would become a part of this ordinance if approved. M/S: Howard, Christ - That the public hearing on PD 84-03 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Toshach, Howard - That the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for PD 84-03. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2316 recommending that the City Council approve PD 84-03, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach NOES: Commissioners: Dickson, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Chairman Fairbanks stated that she was disappointed about the color of the wall. Commissioner Perrine asked if the "wall" under discussion was part of the landscaping plan which has not been approved by the Site Review Committee as yet. Commissioner Christ noted that the Site Committee talked with the builder regarding the wall (which is now a magenta color). The wall's purpose is to identify the entrance to the building--which it accomplishes. Commissioner Christ felt that although the wall is not attractive--it is not unattractive. UP 84-19 Continued public hearing to consider Salvador, J. the application of Mr. Joe Salvador for approval of a use permit to allow the construction of a parking lot and storage yard on property known as 238 & 246 Railway Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that the applicant is in agreement with the Staff recommendation for a continuance of this item in order that he may submit ---- revised plans. -6- M/S: Howard, Christ - That UP 84-19 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ,r UP 85-01 Public hearing to consider the applica- Chahal, G. tion of Mr. Gurbachan Chahal for a use permit to allow off-sale beer and wine from an existing service station on property known as 1533 W. Campbell Ave. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that this application is similar to one recently denied by the Commission, wherein the applicant is requesting approval of a use permit to allow the sale of beer and wine from a gasoline station not in conjunction with a mini-market. Mr. Kee stated that Staff is recommending denial of this application. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Howard, Perrine - That the public hearing on UP 85-01 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Christ, Howard - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2317 denying UP 85-01 with the following findings: (1) the proposed sale of alcoholic beverages is not in relation to a mini-market convenience store in which the major thrust is not the sale of gasoline; and (2) this denial is in line with similar uses which have been previously denied. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Mr. Kee explained the procedure for appealing the decision of the Planning Commission. -7- TA 85-01 Public hearing to consider a City- City-initiated initiated text amendment to Chapter 21.08 of the Campbell Municipal Code to consider changes to the requirements of rear yard setbacks; front yard setbacks; side yard setbacks; accessory buildings and garage setbacks; height limitations and non-conforming building requirements in the R-1-8, R-1-9, R-1-10, and R-1-16 Single Family Residential Zoning Districts. Letters from Linda Lindemeyer, Rex Bishop (Building Industry Associaton), and Robert A. Bardsley were read into the record. Also noted for inclusion into the record were copies of a questionnaire that was distributed by the San Tomas Homeowner's Association. Commissioner Dickson noted that several questionnaires have been received just prior to the meeting, and statistics have not been compiled from the questionnaires. He suggested that the Commission may wish to continue this item. Commissioner Kasolas asked what area the San Tomas Homeowner's Association represented, noting that he lives in the San Tomas Area and he was not contacted by the group, nor given a questionnaire to fill out. He also asked how many of the questionnaires were distributed and to whom. Commissioner Howard suggested that the item be broken into segments. Mr. Woodworth noted that Staff is recommending that the Commission hear the Staff Report, open the public hearing, close the public hearing, and then make recommendations on each issue. A. Rear Yard Setbacks Commissioner Kasolas asked if there is a compelling reason why Staff feels that this chapter should be changed. Mr. Woodworth indicated that this would appear to be a policy decision, rather than something related to health, safety, peace, etc. Commissioner Kasolas asked where this policy emanated from. Mr. Kee explained that the City Council has directed that these hearings be held, and the setbacks be reviewed. Staff has reviewed ordinances from other cities in the County, met with representatives of the San Tomas Area, reviewed Campbell's current codes, and formulated the recommendations as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. __ Commissioner Kasolas felt that it would be wise to mention that some of the ordinances reviewed were from cities with hillside lots with 1/2 to 1 acre size lots. -8- Commissioner Toshach asked what setback would be required to result in all homes being conforming--none of the homes being non-conforming. - Mr. Woodworth responded that Staff has not calculated this data, however, he felt that 5' would be the least possible setback. Commissioner Kasolas asked what the normal height of a single story wall is. Mr. Woodworth responded that the normal height of a single story wall would be 8-9' measured from grade to the top of eave (gutter for flat top roof). Normally, a single story house would conform to a 5' setback. Commissioner Howard asked how Staff came up with its recommendation of 25'. Mr. Woodworth indicated that Staff looked at other ordinances, and 25' seemed to be the average of other cities. Staff has calculated that by increasing the rear yard setbacks to 25', approximately 152 homes would become non-conforming. B. Front Yard and Street Sideyard Setbacks Mr. Woodworth reviewed the front yard and street sideyard setbacks, noting that Staff has calculated that approximately 190 (or 20$) would became non-conforming if new setbacks are adopted. Commissioner Kasolas asked what the necessity of a 25' front yard setback is when the reason it was originally that much was to accommodate larger cars. Cars are now being made much smaller and that large a setback is not really necessary. C. Sideyard Setbacks Mr. Woodworth indicated that Staff had no way to calculate how many homes would become non-conforming if the sideyard setbacks are changed. Commissioner Perrine asked what a person would have to do if they wished to add onto an existing home which had a 5' setback, and the setbacks are then changed as suggested this evening. Mr. Woodworth indicated that the homeowner would have to adhere to the new setbacks for the addition, by jutting back, or apply for a variance. Commissioner Kasolas asked if any calculations were done using lot widths of less than 60', noting that there may be some of these narrow lots in the Crockett/Slam area. Mr. Woodworth indicated that only the standard 60' lot width measurement was used for calculations. -9- D. Accessory Buildings and Detached Garages Commissioner Toshach asked if there was a recommendation on this issue from the San Tomas group, none being indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Mr. Woodworth noted that this issue came to Staff's attention after discussion with the San Tomas group, while Staff was preparing the report. The San Tomas group may have a recommendation this evening. E. Residential Building Height There was brief discussion regarding residential building heights. F. Non-Conforming Buildings Chairman Fairbanks asked if structures which are currently non-conforming under existing codes would come under this situation. Mr. Woodworth indicated that these structures would still be considered non-conforming; however, there did not appear to be many in this situation. Commissioner Dickson asked if it is possible to build a second story with a 5' setback. ____ Mr. Woodworth noted that this would be possible with the approval of the Commission. Usually, the homeowner is asked to provide the Commission with letters from his immediate neighbors saying they do not object to the addition. This does not mean that a second story addition cannot be built unless one has his neighbors approval, but rather is intended to be a courtesy, and has made the situation easier in the past. Commissioner Toshach asked why it would be appropriate to make a difference between the way a non-conforming building is handled in the R-1-8 and larger lots, and the way it is handled in the rest of the City. Mr. Woodworth responded that Staff's recommendation to allow additions to structures which would become non-conforming as a result of a change in the code is a result of Staff's feeling that requiring existing structures to conform to the new setbacks would be a very unfair burden on the property owners. Commissioner Kasolas asked if any thought had been given to what limitations might result as far as adding on to existing homes. Mr. Woodworth indicated that although it depends on where the structure is situated on the lot, there is quite a bit of flexibility on the larger lots. Commissioner Kasolas felt that imposing new setbacks would eliminate a lot - - of choices for many property owners. -10- Commissioner Christ commented that he understood the other positions being presented, however, he personally felt that there are some lots that should not have two story structures on them. He asked how flag lots are dealt with, wherein the majority of the lot size is in width--not length. It would be possible to have a rear property adjoining a side property area with a flag lot situation. Commissioner Christ felt that there should be a clear policy statement as to how property lines are measured--which ones are sideyards, rear yards, etc. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the code allows a two-story home, up to 35' in height, to be built on a 6,000 sq.ft. lot with 5' setbacks. The instituting of different setbacks for a lot of 8,000 sq.ft. or larger , would result in being able to put less house on a larger lot--this does not make sense. Commissioner Howard asked if any thought was given to the monetary effects which might occur as a result of a structure becoming non-conforming. Mr. Woodworth responded that normally banks look to see whether, if a-home ----- ----- - --- is destroyed, it can be rebuilt. This concern is addressed with the Staff recommendation allowing a home to be rebuilt as it was, if it was conforming prior to the enacting of the new guidelines under discussion this evening. Mr. Woodworth noted that he is not a banker however. Staff __. hopes that this statement will cover the situation, but cannot be sure. - Commissioner Howard stated that his understanding is different--that he would not be able to get a loan on the property because it would not be in conformance with the codes of the City. Commissioner Kasolas asked if Commissioner Howard was then suggesting that by owning a non-conforming home, you may suffer some financial hardship by having a home that does not meet the setbacks--that financing of the home could be affected. Commissioner Howard responded affirmatively. Chairman Fairbanks explained to the audience that the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to hold this public hearing. She suggested that if there are group representatives in the audience that they come to the podium first. If the audience wishes to show support, the Commission would have no difficulty with people standing to show accord with that speaker. Chairman Fairbanks indicated that the Commission would appreciate the presentation of new information only, and opened the public hearing. Mr. Lee Peterson, 1156 Audrey Avenue, responded to questions from the Commission regarding the questionnaire referred to at the beginning of discussion on this item. Mr. Peterson noted that approximately 200 of 1 these petitions were distributed to residents in the areas of Robin Lane, Steinway Ave., Walnut Dr., Vale Ave., W. Parr Ave., Theresa Ave., and others, starting last Saturday. -11- Commissioner Dickson noted that approximately 15 of these questionnaires have been received by the Commission. Chairman Fairbanks asked Mr. Peterson about the wording of the questionnaire, noting that because of the wording she has a real concern about the validity of the information coming back. Mr. Peterson agreed with Chairman Fairbanks and noted that the questionnaire was put together very quickly and by non-professionals. He felt that it might be a good idea for the City to redo the questionnaire and mail it to area residents. Commissioner Dickson felt that the wording of the questionnaire made it very easy to prejudice one's answers. Commissioner Howard asked Mr. Peterson to explain who the San Tomas Homeowner's Association is, and who it represents. Mr. Peterson explained that the San Tomas Homeowner's Association is a group that originated because of certain planning issues, persons who are deeply concerned about this City. The Association does not collect dues or elect officers. Mr. Peterson continued that Campbell is the most densely populated City in the area, and the City does not seem to be concerned with the building situation. ~, Commissioner Howard noted that he appreciated Mr. Peterson's concern; however, it bothers him that Mr. Peterson says that he represents the San Tomas Area. Commissioner Howard continued that he lives in the San Tomas Area and has never been approached by this group. He would therefore question whether the group indeed represents the San Tomas Area or represents a small group of homeowners in the Audrey Avenue area. Mr. Peterson stated that he had a petition to submit (attached hereto and entitled Petition for Reasonable Setbacks and Building Height Limitations). Mr. Peterson indicated that the association has not tried to contact people who live in the R-1-6 areas. Chairman Fairbanks commented that she appreciated Mr. Peterson's efforts in getting information out in the area; and, although there can be problems with .questionnaires, she appreciated the information that can come from them. Mr. Peterson cited a section of the General Plan pertaining to the policy on the San Tomas Area, noting that it has come to his attention that the City's General Plan is not in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Peterson presented a comparison of building setbacks, noting that allowing a 5' rear setback totally eliminates the concept of a back yard. He presented a comparison of building heights for area cities, noting that Campbell measures to the mean of the angle of the roof; thereby making it possible to construct a 75' A-frame house in Campbell. ~~ Mr. Peterson presented a copy of an ordinance for architectural review of -12- second stories in Los Altos. Mr. Peterson continued that regarding financial hardship, he would like to hear from someone knowledgeable in ,_. the field in that the Commission and the Staff are not sure of the impact. He noted that there are no 2-1/2 story homes in the San Tomas Area in the R-1-8 or larger lots that he could find--he is having trouble finding a building over 25' in height. He then presented slides showing a "granny flat" which is under construction on Audrey Avenue. Regarding height, Mr. Peterson indicated that Mountain View and Santa Clara both have limitations of 25' and allow second stories. He cited a section from the Building Code regarding methods of measurement for building heights. Mr. Kee stated that the 35' indicated in the existing code would be measured from grade to the peak of the roof. Mr. David McCurley, 1293 Freda Ct., stated that he had never heard of the San Tomas Homeowner's Association, and that he did not want anyone speaking on his behalf unless he was told in advance. Mr. McCurley suggested that if changes are to be made they should be made to the entire City, not just one area. Commissioner Howard noted that every property owner in the City with property zoned R-1-8 and larger was notified of this hearing. It just so _____ happens that the majority of these lots are located in the San Tomas Area. Commissioner Kasolas asked Staff if there were lots zoned R-1-8 and larger in any other area of the City, other than San Tomas. Mr. Kee indicated that the San Tomas Area is the only area with lots zoned in this manner. Mr. Robert Dougherty, 1561 Burrows Rd., stated that he had never heard of the San Tomas Homeowner's Association. Mr. Dougherty noted that it might be a better approach to have increased setbacks be applicable to future development. He would prefer to have some options with his property so that it would be financially viable in the future. He stated that he also had a concern with the impact on construction costs, in that he has worked with the Community Development Block Grant program to develop affordable housing. Mr. Chet Mallory, 1073 Lucot Way, stated that there would be more than adequate buildable area on the larger lots, with no damage being done to the minimum 6,000 sq.ft. lots. Mr. Mallory presented a drawing indicating 1, 2, and 2-1/2 story structures. He felt that it is important to maintain consistency in the area. Regarding non-conforming structures and replacement, he thought that most insurance policies cover the rebuilding of a structure as it was. Mr. Mallory stated that he is very much in favor of changing the setback requirements. -13- _ Mrs. Dorothy Ellis, 1109 Steinway Avenue, stated that she is not a part of the San Tomas Homeowner's Association, but appreciates what they are attempting to do. She thanked the Planning Commission and the City Council for rezoning her area, thereby allowing protection for the larger lots. Mr. Ken Oburn, 1106 Audrey Avenue, stated that he has just received his property tax billing for over $73,000, which makes the undeveloped "park" lots worth a great deal--and because of a few people in the area he has been unable to develop these lots with single family homes. Mr. Oburn continued that he bought the property with the intention of developing it, and the minimum lot size has gone from 6,000 sq.ft, to 10,000 sq.ft. He felt that the other residents of the area should be treated fairly. In conclusion, Mr. Oburn indicated he never received a questionnaire, and his opinion has not been asked by the San Tomas Homeowner's Association. Mr. Tom Tavares, 1206 Hacienda Avenue, presented a petition with 11 signatures from property owners in his development opposing any changes in the existing setbacks. Mr. Tavares explained that several people in his area are planning on upgrading their properties (which were expensive purchases--over $170,000) and new setbacks would make this impossible. At this time, Commission Dickson asked the Chair if, since there had been an indication earlier when Mr. Peterson came forward, if it would be possible to have a show of hands from those in the audience who were opposed to amending the setbacks. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he thought it important that everyone show their support for one side or another, but that it is not the job of the Commission to count noses, but rather to make the appropriate recommendations based on the information presented. Mr. Walt Tersigni, 1295 Harriet Avenue, stated that the San Tomas Homeowner's Association does not speak for him, his family, or his property. Mr. Tersigni continued that he is attempting to subdivide his property and the proposed setbacks would limit the lot configuration and architectural design. He stated he would like the setbacks to remain as they are. The resident of 1151 Audrey Avenue, stated that the the first time he had ever heard of the San Tomas Homeowner's Association was last weekend when they put a questionnaire on his door. He indicated that he did not fill the questionnaire out, and continued that he believed there would be about 75$ of the residents along Audrey Avenue who would become non-conforming if the setbacks are changed, He spoke about being able to do what he wished with his property, and allowing his neighbors the same courtesy, as long as no one intruded upon another's rights. The resident concluded that he could guarantee that someone trying to purchase his property would have a difficult time getting finance if his property was non-conforming. -14- Mr. Neil Sams, 921 Robin Lane, noted that he was a new property owner in the area, and he shared the deep concern of everyone regarding maintaining the rural atmosphere in the area. Mr. Sams continued that he did buy his property with the intention of improving it when finances permitted, and now he is being told that he won't be able to do that. New setbacks would confine his property to what he bought. He has a large lot, and there is no reason why he shouldn't be able to have a second story on his home. Mr. Sams stated that he would propose putting the new setbacks on new developments because they will be able to build around the limitations--existing properties are hindered because of what has already been constructed. Mrs. Leonard, 1360 Burrows Rd., asked why people were worrying about the 31 vacant lots, when new setbacks would result in aproximately 200 existing properties becoming non-conforming. This situation would make it better for her to subdivide her lot. Mrs. Leonard continued that she has been in the lending business for over twenty years. The lending institutions look at non-conforming situations and they do not make loans on them. Mr. Robert Chavez, 1230 Shadle Avenue, stated that the proposed setbacks would kill his house. He is trying to upgrade his home, however new setbacks would eliminate the possibilities because of the way his house _ sits on the lot. Mr. Bruce Reid, 1509 Walnut Drive, asked how many lots are already non-conforming, noting that on Walnut Drive there are at least 6, and of those 6 non-conforming lots, at least three have been refinanced and gotten good loans. He noted that one of these three is his property. Mr. Reid stated that those who want larger setbacks want what was available to them in the County. He continued that if anyone built a 35' structure 5~ from his property line, he would be very upset (and lose his view of the hills), and he guaranteed that anyone else in a similar situation would also be very unhappy. Mr. Reid concluded that all the San Tomas Homeowner's Association is asking is to keep the building height down and back onto the lot to keep the open space. Mrs. Victoria Candelaria, 1326 Harriet, stated she has lived on this property since 1947. The lot is non-conforming {30' x 160'), but it has been explained to her that it could be rebuilt should it be destroyed. She hoped that what is being proposed will not cause any problems for her. Mr. Neil Phenis, 1145 Steinway Avenue, asked about his lot configuration and what would be considered as the front of the lot. Mr. Kee indicated that Staff would be happy to work with Mr. Phenis to answer his questions. Mr. Don Siek, 1286 Munro Avenue, stated that he is not aware of the San Tomas Homeowner's Association. Mr. Siek spoke in favor of Staff's recommendations. Regarding the San Tomas recommendations, Mr. Siek questioned the 25$ of lot width for rear yard setback, noting that it -15- seemed a little ridiculous. Mr. Siek spoke in favor of controlled growth as well as for being reasonable about it. He concluded that he would like to subdivide his 1/2 acre lot into two lots, and anything other than a 5' setback would make architectural designs difficult. Mr. Milton Brown, 1181 Steinway Avenue, stated that the first time two or three people have trouble financing their property, there will be a class-action suit against the City. Mr. Stan Cleveland, 785 Parr Avenue, stated that he knew what he had when he bought his property, and that things should stay the same. M/5: Howard, Christ - That the public hearing on TA 85-01 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Discussion Chairman Fairbanks asked Mr. Dempster if there was any difficulty with the- financing issue,. as far as the Commission making recommendations. Mr. Dempster stated that he thought the Commission should take into account information received this evening. A. Rear Yard Setbacks Commissioner Howard stated that he felt 5' rear setback is too small, however 25' is too much. Perhaps 15' would be appropriate; however, he felt there was not a major need to change the existing. Commissioner Dickson noted that even if the existing setback is maintained, there is still a responsibility to look at harmonious development. A suggestion would be to have the new development come under the Site and Architectural Review process to make adjustments for harmony with neighborhoods that are within the existing ordinance. Coaanissioner Toshach stated that he wanted to assure no predisposition when he asked for the County's setbacks, he was only asking for information to help in the making of a decision. Commissioner Christ felt that 25' was a little more than necessary; and 15' not quite enough. He spoke in favor of a 20' rear yard setback, which would cover the situation no matter what the height of the structure. Commissioner Dickson noted that the non-conforming figures of 152 (or 17$) really bothered him. He did not want to put homeowner's in that position. Commissioner Christ asked how many homes would become non-conforming if the setback was 15', and noted that the only way to avoid making any non-conforming homes would be to stay with the 5'--which is becoming a problem. He spoke in favor of compromise to protect future building and existing properties. -16- Commissioner Kasolas asked if the point was to make people illegal or to limit future development standards. It is not a question of taking sides, but of making a decision which is good for the community now and down the road. He stated that he has difficulty with making anything non-conforming; however, he feels no regard for something that is not already built and has the flexibility on a property. Commissioner Kasolas continued that he feels comfortable with the existing codes. Many people's homes are their largest single asset and this should not be disturbed. Commissioner Dickson suggested that a recommendation be made that all R-1 development go through the site review process to make sure it is harmonious with the area. This would take care of the 31 vacant parcels in the area. Commissioner Howard questioned the legality of such an action. Commissioner Perrine asked if a policy of 15' might be added to this recommendation. Mr. Dempster stated that the policy would be difficult to enforce; however, he felt Commissioner Dickson had a good idea, in that most builders are not going to come into the City and do things that the City is not in agreement with. Perhaps it would be best to address the issue to the 31 vacant lots, instead of the 152 lots which could become non-conforming. Commissioner Christ asked what would happen to people who wanted to add onto their existing homes. Chairman Fairbanks commented that she had a lot of confidence in the site review idea because it provided a method of looking at new development; unfortunately, if minimums are set, there are a lot of applications that come in with those minimums. Chairman Fairbanks continued that she is concerned about the non-conforming issue, but at the same time she is concerned about the residents in the area who have raised concerns about their privacy. Mr. Dempster stated that he has not heard of large numbers of homes becoming non-conforming in other cities, and the situation concerned him. He noted that he would investigate the legal aspects between this evenings and the Council meeting. M/S: Dickson, Toshach - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2318 recommending to the City Council that the existing rear yard setbacks of 5' or 1/2 the height of the building wall remain the same; but, that all new construction on undeveloped lots zoned R-1-8, R-1-9, R-1-10, and R-1-16 be subject to site and architectural review. Motion carried with the -17- following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, NOES: Commissioners: Christ, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None. B. Front Yard and Street Sideyard Setbacks C. Side Yard Setbacks (Interior) M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - Howard, Toshach, Dickson That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2319 recommending to the City Council that the existing front yard and street Sideyard setbacks requirement of 15' for the residence, and 25' for a garage that opens onto the street remain the same; and, That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2320 recommending to the City Council that the existing sideyard setback requirement of 5' of 1/2 the height of the building wall, whichever is greater, remain the same; but, that all building on undeveloped lots zoned R-1-8, R-1-9, R-1-10, and R-1-16 be subject to site and architectural review. Motion carried with the following vote: Discussion on Motion Commissioner Christ stated that he strongly believed in looking at setbacks that are in the rest of the cities in the area, and he felt that the Commission is making a mistake. Commissioner Kasolas felt that the recommendation recognizes a compromise for the current structures and future development. Commissioner Christ noted that the Commission has, numerous times, approved modifications allowing second story additions with variances to the sideyard setbacks, and he did not see the difference. These houses are still non-conforming, but they are still legal and they can still get financing. Mr. Dempster explained that the difference is that people who requested variances for second story additions chose to come before the Commission and chose to add second stories--they are not being made non-conforming because of an action of this body. Commissioner Howard stated that he did not feel comfortable with a 25' setback for garages, and that 20' would be more appropriate. -18- Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Fairbanks None. Howard, Toshach, Dickson D. Accessory Buildings and Detached Garage Setbacks. M/S: Howard, Christ - Discussion on Motion That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2321 recommending to the City Council that the side and rear setbacks be the greater of 5' or 1/2 the height of the building wall for accessory buildings and detached garages. Commissioner Toshach stated that he would like to have an idea of the impact this recommendation would have on the community. Mr. Dempster noted that it would seem appropriate to know how many properties could become non-conforming as a result of this recommendation. Mr. Kee indicated that it would be extremely difficult to determine the number of possible non-conforming properties in this instance, without surveying each property. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Christ, Howard, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Toshach, Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: None. M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2321 recommending to the City Council that the existing setbacks for accessory buildings and garages (not exceeding 14' in height) within 5' of the rear property line, and up to 3' from the side property line for garages, be retained; but, that new building on undeveloped lots. in R-1-8, R-1-9, R-1-10, and R-1-16 zoning districts be subject to site and architectural review. Motion carried with the following roll call vote:. -19- AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Howard, Toshach, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Christ, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None. E. Residential Building Height M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2322 recommending to the City Council that the existing residential height of a maximum of 2-1/2 stories or 35' remain the same; but, that all new building on undeveloped lots in the R-1-8, R-1-9, R-1-10, and R-1-16 zoning districts be subject to site and architectural review. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Howard, Toshach, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Christ, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Commissioner Toshach commented that he felt the community presented some fairly cogent information regarding reasons to look at the height restrictions. He requested that the Planning Commission ask Staff to do a study on the issue. Mr. Kee stated that it is Staff's opinion that the issue should be reviewed. F. Non-Conforming Buildings It was the consensus of the Commission that because of the recommendations made on the previous items, the issue of non-conforming buildings would not be applicable. The Commission recessed at 11:45 p.m; the meeting reconvened at 11:50 p.m. It was the consensus of the Commission that Item Nos. 12, 13 and 14 be considered at this time. -20- MISCELLANEOUS SA 85-06 Signing request - Hancock Fabric Warehouse - 651 W. Hamilton Avenue - PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. M/S: Howard, Dickson - SA 85-03 That SA 85-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0) . Continued signing request - Pay-n-Pak - 1750 S. Bascom Avenue - C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee, and the Committee is coming to the Commission without a recommendation. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending approval and is of the opinion that the size is not unreasonable at this location, and that the modification to the roof treatment improves the architectural compatibility of this signing proposal. M/S: Howard, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission approve SA 85-03, subject to applicant obtaining a building permit if applicable. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). SA 85-07 Signing request - Fast Lane Photo Video - 1640 W. Campbell Avenue - C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this request was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The location of the business is difficult to see, and the Committee is recommending approval. Mr. Kee noted that Staff is also recommending approval. M/S: Kasolas, Christ - That the Planning Commission approva SA 85-07, subject to the condition-that the applicant obtain any necessary building permits. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). * * # -21- PUBLIC HEARINGS TA 85-02 Public hearing to consider a City- City-initiated initiated text amendment to Chapter 21,19 (Additional Living Units) of the Campbell Municipal Code. Chairman Fairbanks explained that this item would be continued; however, if there is anyone in the audience who wishes to give testimony this evening, it will be entered into the record. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak on this item. Mr. Jay Raine, Sierra Pines, California, noted that his daughter lives on Westmont Avenue, and they have been considering an additional living unit on the property. Mr. Raine indicated that he would be able to attend the next meeting. M/S: Kasolas, Dickson - That TA 85-02 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 1985 and that it be agendized at an early time. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). MISCELLANEOUS PM 85-03 Tentative Parcel Map - Lands of Water Tower Associates - 300 Orchard City Drive. Mr. Kee pointed out that this property is in a Planned Development Zoning District, and that in order for anything to be developed on the proposed Parcel B it would have to come back before the Commission. The applicant is aware of this contingency. Staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the provision of a separate parcel on this site would mean that someone could build on that parcel. He felt that this would present several problems. Commissioner Kasolas asked that the Commission be able to look at the plans for the center. M/S: Howard, Christ - That PM 85-03 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Request Continued request for clarification of height restrictions in the P-O (Professional Office) Zoning District - Mr. H. J. Rubinstein. -22- M/S: Christ, Perrine - That, due to the lateness of the hour, this request be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). MM 83-14 Request for extension of approval allowing the use of trailers - 110 W. Latimer Avenue - Our Mother of Perpetual Help Chapel. M/S: Christ, Perrine - That, due to the lateness of the hour, this request be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). MM 85-03 Continued application of Mr. Lesley Moresco for approval of elevations to add a roof element to an existing office building on property known as 125 E. Sunnyoaks Avenue in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. M/S: Christ, Perrine - That MM 85-03 be continued, at the applicant's request, to the Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). It was noted that Item No. 15 regarding voting procedures was discussed at the beginning of this evening's meeting. Item No. 16 regarding a service request on Apricot Avenue would be presented orally at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT M/S: Dickson, Toshach - That the Planning Commission meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 12:13 a.m. -23- APPROVED: JoAnn Fairbanks Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 85-01 APPLICANT: Schwimmer, P. SITE ADDRESS: 454 & 468 McGlincey Lane P.C. MTG. February 26, 1985 The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the Laws of the State of California. 1. Revised elevations indicating improved trash enclosure screening to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor prior to application for a building permit. 2. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on the plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. 3. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of 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. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of S5,000.00 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. Applicant to submit a letter to the Planning Department, satisfactory to the City Attorney, prior to application for building permit, limiting the use of the property as follows: 1098 sq.ft. of office usef and, 7632 manufacturing/warehousing use. 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 Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. 10. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 85-O1 APPLICANT: Schwimmer, P. SITE ADDRESS: 454 & 468 McGlincey Lane P.C. MTG. February 26, 1985 PAGE 2 11. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. 12. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by Planning and Building Departments (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code). 13. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. 14. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. 15. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. 16. The applicant is hereby notified that the property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. All existing structures shall be secured by having windows boarded up and-doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 & 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 17. File a parcel map to combine the two lots. 18. Pay storm drain area fee. 19. Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees, and post surety for all work within the right-of-way. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 20. B2 occupancy -- all walls on property line to be one hour -- openings not allowed. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 85-01 APPLICANT: Schwimmer, P. SITE ADDRESS: 454 & 468 McGlincey Lane P.C. MTG. February 26, 1985 PAGE 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 21. Storage of hazardous materials shall not exceed quantities specified in Table 9-A for B-2 occupancies. 22. hazardous materials storage areas shall be provided with a means of secondary containment. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 85-02 APPLICANT: Dorcich, L. SITE ADDRESS: 2065 S. Winchester Blvd. P.C. MTG. February 26, 1985 The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the Laws of the State of California. 1. Revised elevations and/or site plan indicating changes as indicated in red to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor prior to application for a building permit.. 2. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on the plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with f'.',e approved plans. 3. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee any:/or Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. - - ---~-- 4. Fencing plan indicating location Pnd 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.nv to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within ~ 3 anonths 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 PG&E 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 Planning Department, satisfactory to the City Attorney, prior to application for building permit, limiting the use of the property as follows: 3,150 sq.ft. of office use. 8. Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated in the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan. 9. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 85-02 APPLICANT: Dorcich, L. SITE ADDRESS: 2065 S. Winchester Blvd. P.C. MTG. February 26, 1985 PAGE 2. 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 or 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 check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. 13. Sign application to be su~nitted 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). 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. 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 from the property. Sect. 11.201 & 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 18. B2 offices occupancy over M-1 carports. Carports to be one hour. Offices shall be one hour at property line with no openings. FZRE DEPARTMENT -- 19. Provide one on-site municipal-type fire hydrant at the rear portion of the property. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 85-02 APPLICANT: Dorcich, L. SITE ADDRESS: 2065 S. Winchester Blvd. P.C. MTG. February 26, 1985 PAGE 3. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 20. Pay storm drain area fee. 21. Provide three copies of grading and drainage plan. 22. Obtain an excavation pera-it, pay fees and post surety for all work within the right-of-way. Driveway approach may not be reduced to less than 25 ft. wide as shown in standard details. 23. Applicant is notified that left turn movements for ingress/egress may be restricted or prohibitted in the future. 24. Landscaping in front planting area to be approved by City Engineer.