Loading...
PC Min 01/08/1985PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES JANUARY 8, 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 Arthur A. Kee, Principal Planner Philip J. Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney J. Robert Dempster, Recording Secretary Linda A. Dennis. Absent None. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Chairman Dickson stated that it has been a privilege to serve as Chairman of the Commission for the past year. Commissioner Dickson then passed the gavel to Commissioner Fairbanks, who was elected to serve as Chairman for 1985. Chairman Fairbanks thanked Commissioner Dickson for his leadership on the Commission, and for his time spent behind the scenes working with Staff, the public, and individual commissioners. Chairman Fairbanks then presented Commissioner Dickson with a plaque commemorating his role as Chairman for 1984. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Dickson, Howard - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 11, 1984 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee indicated that items of communications have been received pertaining to specific agenda items and would be discussed at that time. Chairman Fairbanks noted that she had received a memo from Staff pertaining to a driveway situation at 236 W. Campbell Ave. and -2- indicated that if any other Commissioners would like a copy, it could - be made available. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 84-26 Application of Mr. Louie Leu, on Wienerschnitzel behalf of Wienerschnitzel, for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of an addition for indoor seating to the existing Wienerschnitzel restaurant located on property known as 1940 S. Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial} Zoning District. Commissioner Howard reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Site Committee is recommending approval, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet as well as the addition of an increase in the landscaping on the site, and the addition of awnings as discussed by the Architectural Advisor. The applicant is in agreement with these additions. M/S: Dickson, Christ - That the Planning Commission approve S 84-26, subject to conditions as indicated in the - Staff Comment Sheet, with the added conditions that landscaping materials will be upgraded and - landscaping plans will. come back to the Site Committee for review; and, the addition of awnings as indicated on the redlined plans. PUBLIC HEARINGS V 84-03 Public hearing to consider the Haun, G. application of Mr. Gene Haun for a variance to the sideyard setback requirement to allow the construction of an attached garage and hobby shop on property known as 1071 E1 Solyo Ave. in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Kee briefly reviewed this application for the Commission, noting that it is basically a proposal for a reduction in the sideyard setback. -3- Mr. Dempster further explained the application, stating that the item is before the Commission at his suggestion. Plans were submitted to the Building Department and when those plans were reviewed, there ~ ~ were some things overlooked. A building permit was issued for the front structure only. The applicant assumed that he was obtaining a permit for both the main building and the garage. When the building inspector went to the site he discovered the additional building. Because of these difficulties, a meeting was held with the Planning Director, the Building Official, Mr. Haun, and the City Attorney. Mr. Dempster continued that he suggested, as a possible resolvement of the issue, that the applicant apply for a variance of the one side yard setback. Mr. Dempster noted that he has been informed by the applicant, and documentation is to be presented at this meeting, that the property adjacent to the subject site is vacant land which, for some reason, is not going to be built on. Mr. Dempster called the Commission's attention to the conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet, particularly condition #3 pertaining to the status of the rear unit. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Kee reviewed the presented plans and indicated the following information: the rear structure is approximately 22' in height and will be attached to the main residence (which would qualify it as far as the building code, to be part of the main structure). The attachment will be accomplished by a breezeway, approximately 30' long. The applicant has represented the use of the rear structure as a garage, with a hobby shop and office on the second floor. An office use is permitted in a single family zoning district, under the restrictions of a Home Occupation Permit. Mr. Kee continued that the code allows bathroom facilities, including a shower, in any. accessory building--although, a kitchen is not permitted. Chairman Fairbanks asked if Staff found these plans to be valid, and acceptable by the City. Mr. Dempster further explained that the applicant was under the assumption that his building permit was for both the house and the accessory buiding. The foundation is already laid, and it is 6' from the property line. The Building Department maintains that they did not see, nor give approval for, the back structure--they issued permits for the main structure only. There is some concern on the Staff's part, and others, that the applicant could use this rear building for a second residence; therefore, we are suggesting condition #3 which stipulates that the applicant must submit a letter stating that the rear structure may not be used as a separate living unit. -4- Commissioner Toshach commented that the breezeway will, in effect, connect the two structures, thereby making them one structure under the building codes. Mr. Dempster added that the reason for the 22' height of the rear structure is that the applicant is proposing to put his motor home in the accessory building. Mr. Kee noted that "separate" is a key word in this issue, and that a duplex dwelling unit is not allowable in the zoning code. Commissioner Toshach asked if the family residing in the main structure could expand their living space into the rear structure. Mr. Kee noted that this would be allowable; the main thing would be to have only one kitchen (under the code. Commissioner Howard asked why this issue had not been before the Commission originally. Mr. Kee explained that normally a single family house does not come to the Planning Department for review. Mr. Dempster stated that the issue is now before the Commission because the Building Department and the applicant were on two different courses; and, the problem was not discovered until a foundation inspection was made by the building inspector. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the issue before the Commission is that of a variance only, not to sit in judgement on who is correct. If the property line was 4' to the east, the issue would not be before the Commission, provided the, applicant connected the two structures with a breezeway. The issue is if the Commission is in favor of reducing the sideyard setback on this site. Commissioner Christ asked about the setbacks for the rear structure. Mr. Kee responded that the setback were one-half the height of the building wall, and the rear structure is 22' high. The applicant could move the foundation over 4' and not have a problem with the 22' height--or decrease the height, and a variance would not be needed. Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. William McNamara, Arroyo Seco Drive, spoke against the variance, noting that the structure will exceed 1,000 sq.ft., and is two stories in height, making it four times the size allowable for a secondary living unit. Mr. McNamara continued that he thought the structure was only 6' from his rear property line; that plumbing stubs indicate two toilets, which is not necessary for an office; that the breezeway will be more like 50', which is ridiculous; and, in his years of building experience, he would never have been able to -5- Mr. Good, Arroyo Seco Dr., stated that workers at the site said that the rear structure was for in-law quarters; that the house already has a three-or-four garage garage on the main structure; and, that ~,' the neighborhood is against this variance and will fit it. Mr. Dick Schilling, 1115 E1 Solyo Ave., stated that the ridiculous nature of the proposal bothers him. He asked what the required rear yard is on this site. Mr. Kee indicated that the required rear yard for be 10' for the structure that has been proposed on this lot. Mr. Schilling continued that there is already a three-or-four car garage on the main structure, and then another large garage on the back building. Mr. Schilling concluded that this reflects on the question of integrity of the real use. Mr. Gene Haun, applicant, stated that he appreciated what his neighbors had to say. When this property was in the County, he had an approval for a lot split; however, he changed his mind and decided to build. Mr. Haun continued that his personal needs are for a larger home, and that he has many vehicles which he would like to get off the street. The property is 250' x 73', and it should be obvious that someone would use the site for something other than a small home. Mr. Haun noted that he designed the house in good faith, and is coming to the Commission this evening for a reduction of the setback from 10' to 6'. -- Commissioner Howard asked about the adjacent vacant property referred to earlier by Mr. Dempster. Mr. Haun pointed out the subject property on the aerial photo, noting that it would require a connection of approximately 300' to attach any structure to the main building on the site. He stated that he did not see this piece being developed. M/S: Howard, Toshach - That the public hearing on V 84-03 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Dickson, Christ - Discussion of Motion That the Planning Commission accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this project; and, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2307 approving V84-03, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Commissioner Dickson stated that he considered the application a -6- request for an adjustment to the sideyard setback requirement for a two-story building, similar to other variances which have been approved in other areas of the City. Commissioner Howard stated he has serious reservations on this issue in that there are questions being raised which make him uncomfortable; therefore, Commissioner Howard, noted that he would not be in favor of the motion. Commissioner Christ stated that he shared the same reservations as others on the Commission; however, as Commissioner Dickson has indicated, the Commission has approved variances for setbacks on two-story structures before--and that is what is being considered with the application. Commissioner Christ concluded that he has concerns about the use of the structure, as well as the design; however, that is not the issue before the Commission at this time, therefore, he will be voting in favor of the motion. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Dickson, Fairbanks Howard, Toshach None. Mr. Dempster then advised the applicant that anyone wishing to appeal this action to the City Council had ten days in which to do so. UP 84-18 Public hearing to consider the Harandi, F, application of Mr. Fatholah Harandi for a use permit to allow off-sale beer and wine from an existing service station on property known as 890 W. Hamilton Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reviewed this application for the Commission, noting that the applicant is proposing the placement of two coolers, two snack modules, and three carton cigarette modules in an existing service station. The applicant also wishes to have off-sale beer and wine, which requires approval of a use permit by the Planning Commission. Additionally, in that this property is zoned Planned Development, the use permit requires ratification by the City Council. Mr. Kee continued that Staff is of the opinion that the proposed use would seem incompatible with the nearby residential uses; the sale of beer and wine from this service station is adverse to the efforts of law enforcement agencies to curb drunk driving; and, the sale of beer and wine is not compatible with a service station use. Other beer and wine licenses which have been approved at service station have been in conjunction with mini-market facilities. For these reasons, Staff cannot support this request. -~- Commissioner Kasolas noted that there are several other stores in the immediate area which sell alcohol, some of which are even closer to residential uses. Additionally, there are other service stations which are selling alcohol, and have been prior to the City's adoption of the current ordinance addressing the need for a use permit. Commissioner Kasolas continued that he was concerned with the issue that the proposed use is near residential uses. He asked if this was an issue, why do we allow any of these operations to exist. Mr. Kee noted that Staff is of the opinion that there is a distinction between a mini-market operation and a gas station. Commissioner Kasolas asked if the Commission should be in the position of determining which businessman is able to do what. Chairman Fairbanks noted that she has some of the same concerns, and that one of the main reservations was alcohol in conjunction with vehicles. Commissioner Kasolas continued that the issue is really why the Staff recommendation is "no" in this instance. How does it relate to the community and this particular businessman. He felt that the letter from the Police Chief should be taken into consideration, but not totally--because of the amount of personal opinion involved. Commissioner Kasolas felt that the issue should be isolated--does the applicant have the appropriate physical plant to undertake the sale of additional items over and above the sale of gasoline and lubricants. Commissioner Dickson felt that the primary issue was one of safety. A use permit is granted with the finding that it is not harmful to the peace, safety, heath, welfare, etc. of the community. He continued that a mistake may have been made in the past, but that does not means that we cannot begin to correct that mistake. Commissioner Dickson stated that he is not in favor of what is happening in our community--alcohol and gasoline are a bad mixture, and he is in agreement with the Police Chief. Commissioner Perrine asked what it would take to remove the liquor permits from the three stations mentioned in the Staff Report. Mr. Kee indicated it would require a revocation of the use permit through the public hearing process. Mr. Dempster added that cause would have to be established; that it would have to be found that the conditions of the use permit had been violated in some way; or that the use was a nuisance and interfering with the health, welfare, etc. of the community. Commissioner Howard asked if the permits could be reviewed within a certain time period. -8- Mr. Kee responded that unless a review period is specified by the Commission, the approval is permanent. Commissioner Dickson noted that the memo from the Police Chief indicates that the station at Winchester and Campbell Ave. has had violations from the ABC, and asked how the Commission could get further information regarding these violations, in that this may provide the information necessary to revoke the use permit. Mr. Kee indicated that normally the Planning Department or the Police Department would get the information regarding any violations. Staff will attempt to gather this information and report back to the Commission at the next meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission that information regarding possible violations with the ABC be obtained for the. next meeting. Commissioner Kasolas felt that it is the job of the Commission to review items that are brought before it--not to be policemen, and he would caution the Commission in this respect. Commissioner Kasolas added that if a specific department thinks there is a problem, they should bring it before the Commission. Commissioner Dickson stated that he felt the Police Chief was giving the Commission some information regarding this type of use, and he felt that the Commission should give indication that they are _ interested in this situation. Commissioner Howard stated he would like to know if there is a problem with these types of uses, and therefore, would like to see this item continued. Commissioner Christ stated that in some ways the sale of beer and wine is consistent with market sales, and this station does not have a market use. Commissioner Christ asked if alcohol sales from 7-11 stores contributed to the accident rate as much as gas station alcohol sales--are there statistics. Commissioner Toshach stated that he Commissioner Dickson. He noted that Commission not to allow a perception ameniable to the mixture of gasoline appear that sort of perception could Police Chief. shared the concerns of it would be important for the develop that the community is and alcohol; and that it would arise from the memo from the Chairman Fairbanks opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. -9- Mr. Fatholah Harandi, applicant, to speak in favor of his application. Mr. Harandi noted the number of places which sell alcohol in the immediate vicinity, as well as other stations in the City. He stated he did not know why he should not get a use permit for his station when everyone else has one; and, if the decision was up to the Police Department, why was his application taken--why wasn't he just told to ask the Police Department. Mr. Kee explained the application procedure, and noted that it was up to the Commission to make a decision--not Staff. Staff only makes a recommendation, and the Police Department comments are only a part of the information that is presented for the Commission's information. Commissioner Kasolas asked the applicant if he would like a continuance in order to review the issue further to see if it might be possible to come up with another type of proposal. Mr. Harandi stated that he would like a continuance. Mr. Kee explained the time frames, and there was a brief discussion with the applicant regarding deadlines for presenting new plans. M/S: Toshach, Christ - That UP 84-18 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1985 in order that the applicant might consider additional proposals. Motion carried with a vote of 6-1-0, with Commissioner Perrine voting "no". The Commission recessed at 9:05 p.m; the meeting reconvened at 9:19 p.m. MISCELLANEOUS TS 83-09 Hearing to consider Alternative Lands of Oburn Street Improvements for an approved subdivision (Oburn Court), located in an R1-10-S (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Helms reported that Audrey Avenue is indicated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan as one of the streets which might be a condidate to alternative street improvements. Oburn Court is a recently approved subdivision off of Audrey Avenue. The alternatuive -10- street improvement approach provides that something other than the standard city street might be used to allow for a more rural _ appearance; or, more specifically, that asphalt maybe used in place of standard concrete curbs and gutters, and the alignment of sidewalks may deviate. The applicant has indicated his interest in possible alternative street improvements for Oburn Court and has submitted this request to the Public Works Department, as is called for under the General Plan. The procedures provide that a hearing be held at the Planning commission level so that neighborhood input may be obtained. Mr. Helms noted indicated that notice has been mailed to the neighborhood in order that input might be received at this evenings meeting. Commissioner Toshach asked about the lifetime of asphalt as compared to concrete. Mr. Helms noted that, in Staff's opinion, concrete would last several times longer. However, there are some extenuating circumstances that come into play. The City has an extensive sidewalk repair program because of the damage done by street trees displacing the Crete. One of the things about asphalt is that it is more flexible, and would result in a more elastic situation with the tree roots, might result in being able to keep the asphalt in place longer. Commissioner Toshach asked if the City paid for the repair of the curbs and gutters. Mr. Helms explained that the monies are taken from a maintenance district formed with funds levied on all property owners in the City. The district was established primarily to maintain street - trees and lighting. Commissioner Toshach noted that he was under the impression that alternative street improvements were something which would be allowable to provide for lower cost housing. The lots on Oburn Court are large lots which will probably result in larger homes being developed, homes which will not be constructed as low cost housing. Therefore, it would seem that this street would not be appropriate for alternative street improvements. Commissioner Toshach continued that he wondered if the ultimate result would be the City subsidizing a developer. Commissioner Kasolas asked if the plans called for a monolithic sidewalk. Mr. Helms responded that the plans call for a 5' sidewalk adjacent to the curb, with a rolled curb. The standard 5' right-of-way will be placed behind the sidewalk and trees will be placed in that area. Commissioner Kasolas asked if it would be safe to assume that the City will not have the same problem in the future because of the types of trees being required for street planting today. --- I -11- Mr. Helms noted that the problem will certainly diminish in the future. There was a brief discussion regarding funding being used for street repairs. Commissioner Toshach cited the section in the General Plan (page 58) - Removal of Government Constraints - which indicates the possibility of alternative street improvements, which in turn, could be passed onto the consumer in the form of lower housing costs. Chairman Fairbanks explained the background of the alternative street improvement issue, noting that it was the result of hearings and citizen input indicating that the residents would like to see the rural atmosphere maintained in certain sections of the City, and one way that was suggested which might provide this would be the use of street improvements which were something other than the standard City improvements. Chairman Fairbanks noted that she did not believe there was a connection drawn between the size or the cost of the housing as it relates to ashpalt paving. Commissioner Kasolas asked how the provision of a 5' monolithic asphalt sidewalk lent itself to the making of a rural character when the Commission has no control of the types of architecture, colors, or siding on houses that will be built on these lots. Commissioner Kasolas continued. that he had understood that discussion of alternative street improvements would take place in instances where we would be retaining the rural character of a neighborhood. In this case, we do not know what is coming up, as far as the character of the street. Commissioner Christ added that he thought the street improvements on Oburn Court should match those planned for Audrey. Avenue, if and when Audrey is improved.. A lack of consistency in the improvements could create an eyesore, rather than a rural character. Commissioner Kasolas noted that we would be setting the type of improvements for Audrey Ave. if alternate street improvements are approved for this subdivision. Commissioner Dickson stated that the Commission is going over old ground. One of the conditions of approval for this tentative subdivision map was that the developer consider alternative street improvements, which is what he is attempting to do at this point. Chairman Fairbanks asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this issue. Mr. Steve Arnold, 1211 Park Ave., San Jose, engineer for this project, indicated that the improvements could easily be changed to provide a rolled concrete curb, thereby providing the life expectancy of concrete, but with a rural atmosphere. The owner and the builder has not objection to constructing a rolled concrete curb. The street -- would look better and it doesn't cost that much more. Mr. Arnold -12- continued that asphalt street are very durable; the soil in this area .~ is excellent, and will support concrete or asphalt. Mr. Arnold stated that he would ask that the Commission consider the sidewalks optional, because of the small amount of foot traffic anticipated on this court; and that the Commission consider a rolled concrete curb in lieu of vertical asphalt curbs. Mr. Helms stated that the City's ordinances do not allow either of these options. The ordinances provide for vertical curbs only, and sidewalks along both sides of the cul-de-sac. A rolled curb is considered mountable, not usually depressed at the driveway, thereby creating safety problems. Additionally, rolled curbs create problems for the street sweepers. Commissioner Howard asked if the sidewalk might be a meandering one. Mr. Arnold stated that he didn~t believe the City would allow this, in that there would be problems with the easements and maintenance; however, easements could be granted. Commissioner Kasolas asked Mr. Arnold if he was suggesting the use of portland cement rather than asphalt for the sidewalk. Mr. Arnold noted that he was suggesting the removal of the sidewalk completely. Commissioner Kasolas asked Mr. Arnold what his opinion was of Portland cement vs. asphalt. Mr. Arnold indicated that he believed asphalt looks more rural, and that is why he proposed the use of asphalt on his plans. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it would not be known whether the driveways would be concrete or asphalt, which could create an undesirable effect. Mr. Lee Peterson, 1156 Audrey Ave., asked if something other than the standard street light might be provided; if perhaps colors could be added to the concrete, which might achieve a desired rural look; and, why can't asphalt sidewalks be made to last as long as asphalt streets. Mr. Helms responded that the subdivision ordinance, at this time, provides only for the provision of standard street lights. Regarding the coloring of concrete, Mr. Helms noted that it can be done, and has been done. The trouble with the colored concrete comes when it is repaired. It is difficult to match the colors, thereby creating a undesirable patchwork effect. Mr. Helms added that asphalt sidewalks are as durable as asphalt streets. -13- M/S: Howard, Christ - That the Planning Commission agree with the recommended street improvements; and, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt such street improvements for this subdivision. Amendment to Motion M/S: Toshach, Kasolas - That the motion be amended to substitute portland cement for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in this subdivision. Discussion on Amendment Commissioner Dickson asked if the portland cement would work on the plans as presented. Mr. Helms concluded, after brief discussion, that the portland cement would work with the presented plans. Commissioner Christ stated that the only problem with concrete is that Audrey Ave. is one of the street proposed for alternative improvements, and he felt that Audrey and Oburn should be consistent to avoid a patchy effect. Commissioner Kasolas felt that the issue was not one of portland cement or asphalt, but rather to consider alternative street improvements and alternative sidewalk plans. He felt that is exactly what the Commission is doing at this time. There are many types of cement and designs, and plans. Mr. Helms pointed out that a decision on this subdivision will also be establishing improvements for those lots fronting onto Audrey, thereby establishing a precedent for Audrey Avenue. Mr. Peterson stated that he believed he and his neighbors would prefer asphalt to white concrete. Commissioner Toshach asked about storm drains in this area, and what impact the type of gutter material would have on the storm drain system. Mr. Helms explained the storm drain system in this area. Vote on Amendment AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Toshach, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Howard, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None. -14- Discussion on Motion for Approval as Presented Commissioner Kasolas stated that he was concerned with the issue of asphalt in the summer time. Additionally, this housing tract will probably have small children. The asphalt is very hot in the summertime and tends to be inadequate for children to play on. He felt that the objective for rural atmosphere could be accomplished by using some more imagination. Commissioner Kasolas felt that a mistake would be made in just considering asphalt. Commissioner Dickson noted that the Commission was going over old ground, again; and, that perhaps a report from Public Works Staff regarding alternative street improvements might be appropriate. Commissioner Toshach spoke regarding the durability of the subject materials, and noted that the comment has been made that the asphalt sidewalks are as durable as asphalt streets. Commissioner Toshach commented that the sidewalks are not framed in by concrete, whereas streets are. He continued that the asphalt sidewalks he has seen are crumbling and required a great deal of maintenance. He believed that, in adopting an asphalt sidewalk, we will be creating an immense maintainence burden on the City that could be avoided by a creative use of portland cement--a maintenance problem which he would like to see the City avoid. Vote on Motion to Approve AYES: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Fairbanks Kasolas, Toshach None. Howard, Dickson, NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: PD 83-04 Kavanaugh, L. r Referral from City Council regard- ing 600 E. Hamilton Ave. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending a continuance, in that the applicant has not submitted the information requested by Staff. M/S: Dickson, Toshach - That PD 83-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 1985 in order that additional information may be received by Staff. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -15- SA 84-59 Sign application of Citti's Citti's Florist Florist, located at 990 E. Hamilton Ave.. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The readerboard is now being reduced to three lines, as opposed to the original 6 lines, and the address is being added at the bottom of the sign. This sign application. is coming before the Commission with no recommendation from the Site Committee. Mr. Kee stated that Staff is of the opinion that the address would be an improvement, and the reduction of the readerboard lines is also an improvement over the originally presented plans. The readerboard, however, is still proposed as three lines, and it would be up to the Commission to determine whether. or not this. use. justified a readerboard. Staff has not recommended readerboards in the past, and would continue with that recommendation. Commissioner Howard added that the sign will not present names of other tenants in the building, and that an agreement will be worked out between the property owner and the City wherein other tenants will not be on the sign. There will be a sign within the building for that purpose. Mr. Kee explained that the sign is proposed to be 14'7" in height, three-sided, solid construction, stucco matching the building, with a three-lined readerboard section. Commissioner Kasolas asked if this proposal has been reviewed by the Public Works Department in relation to sight visibility on the corner. Mr. Helms indicated that he has not had the opportunity to review this proposal, since he has been on vacation. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the side of this size in relation to the sign across the street, which is for a major shopping center, is considerable. Chairman Fairbanks asked if the neon treatment on this sign will flash. Mr. Craig Manard, Cal-Neon Sign Co., stated that the sign will not flash. He explained that, in his opinion, the sign would not be a traffic hazard. Additionally, Mr. Manard explained that the floral business depends a great deal upon spontaneity, and Citti's Florist has statistics documenting an increase of 10-15$ in sales of a readerboard advertised item, and can also account for a 20+k-drop in sales in instances where a readerboard is not used. Mr. Manard_ continued that the proposal tries to keep the textures and colors the -16- same as the building. The only illuminated part of the sign will be "Citti's", the sign will be hollow to provide access to the lighting inside; the readerboard letters are proposed to be 6"; and, the readerboard section will be covered with an unbreakable poly material to prohibit the changing of the letters, and other vandalism. Chairman Fairbanks asked if the readerboard would include the prices of the advertised flowers. Mr. Manard noted that Citti's would like to include the prices. Chairman Fairbanks asked about the conditions of approval as indicated in the Staff Report, and if Staff was still of the same opinion. Mr. Kee stated that Staff has consistently not recommended readerboards; however, Staff can see that this use would not be the same as that of an automotive store, and Staff feels that there may be some justification for approval of this readerboard use. Staff could support the sign as presented this evening, for this location. Mr. Kee continued that Staff would request conditions of approval as follows: (1) a letter from the property owner stating that there will be no additional outside signing for other tenants of this building; that there will only be three spaces on the readerboard; and, that the applicant will secure any necessary building permits prior to erection of the sign. Commissioner Kasolas asked what the policy of the City Council is in regard to readerboard signs. Mr. Kee responded that he believed the Commission has the authority to approve readerboards. Commissioner Kasolas noted that he was concerned with the massive appearance of the proposed sign. Commissioner Perrine asked if there was any way the Commission might indicate to the applicant it's feelings about the readerboard, which would allow the applicant to re-design the sign if necessary. Mr. Manard noted that the proposed readerboard sign would be much more attractive that having the windows plastered with signs. Commissioner Kasolas asked the applicant if the property owner would be ameniable to keeping all signing off the windows if the readerboard were approved. Mr. Manard stated that he felt the applicant would be in agreement with this approach. -17- Commissioner Kasolas stated that this is a main corner in the City, and a three-side sign is proposed right on the corner. He felt that there would be a problem with everyone in town coming back to the Commission ask}ng why they could not have such a sign. He continued that the readerboard takes away from what was originally proposed as a very professional building. This proposal results in an almost street merchant effect. Commissioner Kasolas concluded that that he felt the sign was just too big for this location. Commissioner Perrine stated that he did not have a problem with the readerboard effect in this location. Commissioner Christ stated that he did not have a problem with the readerboard, however, he did see a problem with the location and the size of the sign. Commissioner Howard stated that he did not have a problem with the sign; however, he would like to hear from Public Works regarding the line of sight. Commissioner Toshach stated that he did not understand why this merchant should be treated any differently than other merchants, in relation to the readerboard sign. Commissioner Dickson stated that he fully agreed with Commissioner Toshach. M/S: Perrine, Dickson - That SA 84-59 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 1985 in order that Public Works Staff might review the proposed sign location in relation to .sight distance. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). R 84-13 Request of Mr. William Harman for ZC 83-09 a reinstatement of previously Harman, W. approved plans allowing the construction of 8 townhomes on property known as 44 & 56 Sunnyside Ave. in an R-2-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning. District. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval of the revised development schedule. The Architectural Advisor did bring up the area of sliding glass windows, and the applicant is in agreement with the Architectural Advisor's comment and will be presenting this to the developer. This is not a condition of approval, but is felt would be desirable by the Architectural Advisor. -18- M/S: Dickson, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the revised development schedule for this project. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). UP 84-08 Consideration of revised plans S 84-11 for a previously approved office Lincoln Property Co. project located on property known as 2105 S. Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) and R-2-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The revised parking layout indicates a ratio of 1:250 with the correct back-up distances provided. The details of the parking structure have been completed and address the grade-line concerns. Mr. Kee noted, at this point, that Staff is of the opinion that some measurements of the grades are still needed. Commissioner Howard continued that the details of the loading and trash enclosure will be coming back to the Site Committee, along with a lighting scheme. Samples of colors and buildings materials have not yet been presented. And, the paving materials have been addressed. Therefore, the Site Committee is recommending approval. There was brief discussion regarding grade measurements. Mr. Kee commented that presented plans were not clear, in Staff's opinion, which results in the recommendation for the submittal of cross sections demonstrating a reduced height in the parking garage, as specified in the Staff Report. Chairman Fairbanks asked if the plans, as presented this evening, address Staff's concerns totally. Mr. Kee stated that Staff would still want the distances clarified. Staff would like to be able to check these distances once. constructed, to see that what has been represented to the Commission is what is being constructed in the field. M/S: Howard, Perrine - That the Planning Commission approve the revised plans, subject to the submittal of cross sections demonstrating a reduced height in the parking garage, and with the lighting and trash enclosure plans coming back to the Site Committee for approval. -19- Discussion of Motion Commissioner Dickson stated that he would be opposing the motion in -- that he did. not find a parking structure to be harmonious with a residential area. Vote on Motion Motion carried with a vote of 5-2-0, with Commissioners Dickson and Fairbanks voting "no". Staff Report Staff report regarding requirements for application submittals. Commissioner Toshach asked that information regarding trash enclosure locations be included on the list, as well as the City's policy of promoting alternative means of transportation (i.e. bicycles). It was the consensus of the Commission that, due to the latest of the hour, this item be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSION ~ Chairman Fairbanks noted that a letter has been received by Mrs. _____ Virginia Beckett regarding Carlyn & Hamilton Avenues (attached hereto). It was the consensus of the Commission that this communication be referred to the Public Works Department. Planning Commission Committee Appointments Chairman Fairbanks stated that Commissioners would serve on subcommittee as follows: Site and Architectural Review Committee: Commissioner Howard, Chairman Commissioner Christ (Alternate) Commissioner Perrine Transportation Committee: Commissioner Kasolas Liaison to City Council: Commissioner Dickson Study Session Mr. Kee noted that a City Council/Planning Commission Study Session is being agendized for January 31, 1985. Commissioners should apprise Staff of any items they would .like put on the agenda. -20- Commissioner Kasolas stated he would like to include discussion of blighted conditions within the community, and the possibility of changing the General Plan for these areas, and/or 'the inclusion of a -- redevelopment agency--specifically, areas of San Tomas and housing conditions. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the blighted conditions in some of the San Tomas areas is already affecting property values. Commissioner Howard noted that the Architectural Advisor would like to address the Council and the Commission regarding architectural concepts, textures, colors, etc. This subject may be appropriate for a study session agenda. Commissioner Howard continued that the Commission may wish to require anyone submitting plans for a commercial or office development to submit composition boards addressing colors, texture, and building materials. Par Course Commissioner Toshach thanked Staff for repairing the safety hazard he reported on the par course so expeditiously. ADJOURNMENT M/S: Kasolas, Perrine - That the Planning Commission meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m. APPROVED: JoAnn Fairbanks Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-26 APPLICANT: Louie Leu (on behalf of Wienerschnitzel) SITE ADDRESS: 1940 S. Bascom Ave. P.C. MTG. January 8, 1985 (Conditions as approved by P.C.) 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. Plan shall also indicate upgrading of existing landscaping. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Applicant to submit a letter to the Planning Department, satisfactory to the City Attorney, prior to application for building permit, limiting the use of the property as follows: a maximum of 26 seats in restaurant. 6. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 7. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. 8. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. 9. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. 10. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. CONDITIONS OE APPLICANT: Leu, ADDRESS: 1940 S. Page 2 APPROVAL: S 84-26 L. (Wienerschnitzel) Bascom Ave. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State a'nd City requirements for the handicapped. BUILDING DEPARTMENT No comment. FIRE DEPARTMENT No comment. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ----------------------- No comment. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE --------------------------------------- 13. Awnings be provided as recommended by the Architectural Advisor. 14. Landscape materials to be upgraded as discussed in the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting; and, landscaping plans to come back to the Site Review Committe prior to application for a building permit. EXHIBIT A -REVISED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE APPLICANT: Blunt, D. (B/J$A Development Co.) Harman, W. -- SITE ADDRESS: 44 ~ 56 Sunnyside Ave. P. C. Mtg.: ]/8/85 1. Construction to begin within one year of City Council approval. 2. Construction to be completed within one year of starting date. Revised development schedule recommended for approval by Planning Commission at meeting of Jan. 8, 19$5. NOTE: Above Development Schedule is a standard used by the Planning Department when applicant has not submitted a schedule for project .