Loading...
PC Min 12/11/1984PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES December 11, 1984 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 (8:15 p.m.), Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Fairbanks, Dickson; Planning Director Arthur A. Kee, Planner II Marty Woodworth, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, Acting City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 27, 1984 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee reported that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Kee reported that this tentative subdivision map is being processed as a condition of approval to allow the proposed office building at 851 E. Hamilton Avenue to be sold as condominium offices. M/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission find the proposed map in accord with the General Plan; and, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve this tentative subdivision map, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). -2- ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 84-22 Continued application of Mr. Michael Riedinger, M. Riedinger, on behalf of Design and _ Engineering Systems, Inc., for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of an industrial building on property known as 1587 & 1599 Dell Ave. in a CM=B (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval "in concept", subject to revised plans which address the building design and the tieing of the buildings together coming back to the Site Committee . Mr. Kee noted that concern was expressed about the color of the building, as well as the tieing together of the separate buildings. Commissioner Christ asked about the window treatment, noting that previous discussions has the windows which went all the way to the ground needed more of a safety factor, and that he was under the impression that windows that were not recessed would not be put all the way to the ground. Mr. Kee indicated that this could be made a separate condition of approval of approval, or addressed under Condition 1. Commissioner Fairbanks asked if the applicant was aware of Condition 7, _ pertaining to the submittal of a letter limiting property use. Mr. Kee stated that it is his understanding that the applicant is aware of all the conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. M/S: Howard, Christ - That the Planning Commission approve S 84-22 "in concept", subject to revised plans addressing items in the Staff Comment Sheet, as well as the window treatment, to be approved by the Site Committee and the Planning Commission prior to application for a buiding permit. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 84-17 Public hearing to consider the applic Willson, D. tion of Mr. Doug Willson for approval of a use permit, and plans to allow the construction of a secondary living unit on property known as 1067 W. Parr Ave. in an R-1-10 (Single Family Residential with 10,000 sq.ft. minimum lot size) Zoning District. -3- i Commissioner Howard reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Staff is recommending a continuance due to the complexity of problems regarding setbacks in the area. The applicant has requested that the Commission make a decision since he filed his application prior to the moratorium on building. Commissioner Howard added that the proposed structure is shown to be 5' from the rear property line. Commissioner Toshach asked the City Attorney for a ruling in view of the moratorium. Mr. Seligmann stated that generally a moratorium is only applicable to applications that have been filed subsequent to the enactment of the moratorium, unless the Council specifically stated that it was to be retroactive--which is not the case in this instance. Commissioner Fairbanks asked if the neighbors are aware of this proposal. Mr. Kee noted that property owners within 300' of the affected parcel were notified regarding this application. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Doug Willson, applicant, submitted letters from four adjacent property owners indicating they did not oppose his proposal (attached hereto). Mr. Willson indicated that he is building the unit for his daughter, who is __ having a difficult time finding a place to live. Mr. Bruce Reid, 1509 Walnut Drive, stated that he had felt that this type of thing would not happen in that a moratorium was enacted by the Council. He noted that the day before the Council meeting he was told that there were no applications for additional living units. Mr. Kee noted that the application was filed prior to the moratorium placed by the Council (filed November 5, 1984), and Staff's position, as well as Council policy, would be to process the application. Mr. Reid indicated that if the people involved with him knew about this application this evening they would have been present. The 5' setback is not very much--these lots are large enough to allow larger setbacks. He asked that this application be turned down and put off until this problem is settled. Mr. Lee Peterson, 1156 Audrey Avenue, stated that he also opposed the Commission approving this application, noting that if it is approved, it will only get appealed and have to go to the Council--and he did not think the Council would be too crazy about it. Mr. Peterson concluded that the issue should be deferred until the setback issue is solved. Chairman Dickson noted that even if this application was deferred, it would not fall under the new setback regulations. 4- Mr. Seligmann noted that this was correct. Mr. Peterson stated that the Planning Commission has the General Plan guildelines, which he would hope they would be following in their decision process. In the General Plan, there is a stated goal to preserve and protect the San Tomas Area. Mr. Peterson continued that if the applicant insists on having a decision, he thought the Commission should deny on those grounds. Right now the applicant is somewhat limited because of the 10$ rule, and possibly would have more flexibility under the new setbacks. Mr. Kenneth Oburn, 1106 Audrey Avenue, stated that he started years ago trying to develop his property, and all they are getting is guff from the neighbors. He continued that he didn't think two or three people have the right to tell the whole area what to do with their property--it's the same old argument. Mr. Oburn concluded that his whole subdivision is out the door if new setbacks are passed. Mr. Reid cited the General Plan policy for the San Tomas Area, and page 49 of the General Plan regarding densities, noting that they didn't want 6,000 sq.ft. lots. Mr. Kee added that low density on the General Plan is less than 5.9 units per gross acre. If this proposal were calculated out, it would be less than that allowable. Two units on the subject lot is still low density, and this proposal would fit under the use permit requirements, the General Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Fairbanks asked Mr. Kee if this application would have more flexibility under setbacks being proposed later on this evening's agenda. Mr. Kee stated that what is being proposed would not be allowed under proposed setbacks--namely the distance in the rear yard area. Commissioner Fairbanks asked if the applicant was aware of what is being proposed under the setback issue later on the agenda. Mr. Willson stated that he was aware; however, he felt that his application should be considered under the regulations which were in effect at the time he filed his application. M/S: Fairbanks, Howard - That the public hearing on UP 84-17 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). M/S: Howard, Toshach - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2301 approving UP 84-17, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. -5- Discussion of Motion Commissioner Howard noted that the application was submitted prior to the moratorium, and would require a decision based on the rules in effect at that time; and, the applicant has submitted letters from the immediate property owners indicating no opposition to his proposal. (Commissioner Kasolas entered the Chambers at 8:15 p.m.) Commissioner Christ stated that he was not much in favor of approving this application, but due to the fact that the lot has already been developed, there seems very little that the applicant can do to meet new requirements; and, because of the fact that the application was filed prior to the moratorium, he would be voting in favor of the motion. Chairman Dickson asked about the setbacks on Lucot Avenue, behind this property. Chairman Dickson added that the Commission must be careful in looking at harmonious development regardless of setbacks, in that these structures will be existing long after some of the current residents have gone. He expressed concern that the secondary unit was so close to the property line, and noted he would be opposing the motion. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Kasolas. Mr. Kee explained the appeal procedure to those present. S 84-24 Public hearing to consider the applica- Zweig, H, tion of Mr. Hans Zweig for approval of a Site and Architectural application to allow the move-on of two residential dwellings onto property known as 235 N. Third St. in an R-M-S (Multiple Family/Low-Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet, with the change. in Condition 1 to read "Revised elevations and/or site plan indicating design of covered parking and trash area to be submitteed...". Commissioner Fairbanks asked about the condition of the structures, noting that it was her understanding, from previous testimony, that they were not in very good condition. -6- Mr. Kee responded that the structures will need to be brought up to current building code standards. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Hans Zweig, applicant, explained his proposal to the Commission, noting that the structures are of moderate historical interest, and he felt they are worth saving. M/S: Fairbanks, Howard - That the public hearing on S 84-24 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2302 approving S 84-24, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet, and the change to Condition 1 to read "Revised plans indicating design of covered parking and trash area to be submitted...". Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. S 84-25 Public hearing to consider the applica- Zweig, H. tion of Mr. Hans Zweig for approval of a Site and Architectural application to permit the move-on of an existing single family residence from property known as 1915 S. Winchester Blvd. to property known as 169 N. Central Avenue in an R-M (Multiple Family Residential) Zoninq District. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval for moving of the house only onto the property, with the condition of a six month time limit to put the house on a foundation. The reason for this recommendation is because of a question as to what the applicant will be doing on this site. He has a tentative location for the house, however there are a lot of variables. The applicant would be required to submit a detailed site plan indicating disposition of the 3 existing units, and/or moving an additional unit onto the property, for approval of the Planning Commission prior to getting a permit to move the house from Winchester Blvd. -7- Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Ms. Dorothy Shattock, 391 California St., thanked the applicant for saving these homes. Commissioner Christ asked the applicant about the possibility of moving two houses to this site, as indicated in the applicant's letter which is included in the agenda packet. Mr. Zweig indicated that he had not seen one of the houses, and is trying to reserve the option as to which one of the houses is in better condition. He thought that two of the three existing cottages on Central Avenue were .saveable. M/S: Fairbanks, Howard - That the public hearing on S 84-25 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2303 approving S 84-25, 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, ___ Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. ZC 84-04 Referral from the City Council regard- PD 84-04 ing the application of Mr. Larry Largent Largent, L. for a zone change from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development/Professional Office) on property known as 481 Carlyn Avenue; and a Planned Development Permit and approval of plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of an office building on properties known as 481 Carlyn Avenue and 310 W. Hamilton Avenue. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee, noting that concerns of the Committee and Staff were addressed as follows: (1) Regarding the rear elevations of the building, the applicant is attempting to screen the rear of the structure with trees on the property line. (2) The location of the -8- stairwells has been changed, and the wall has been moved to approximately 5' from the property line. Additionally this wall is now rescending. (3) The subject six parking spaces which were originally shown as enclosed garages are now shown as open parking spaces. (4) Seven of the carport spaces which were originally indicated as "compact" are still indicated as "compact" and will remain as such. (5) There has been some re-arranging of some of the parking spaces off Carlyn Avenue to alleviate some of the difficulty of getting in and out of this area, and the most difficult spaces are now indicated as "compact" spaces. (6) The colors and building materials are conditioned to come back to the Site Review Committee for approval. Commissioner Howard continued that the Committee also addressed concerns expressed by the Architectural Advisor, as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet, as follows: (1) The colors and building materials have been noted to come back to the Site Committee for approval. (2) The landscaping area in question constitutes approximately 2' of planting area and will be planted with a tree and, perhaps, some vines. (3) Regarding the building materials for the roof screening--these will come back to the Site Review Committee for approval. (4) Regarding the sloped glass at the top of window openings, the Architectural Advisor did not see a problem with this design feature. The Site and Architectural Review Committee is recommending approval, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Chairman Dickson commented that he attended a meeting with the applicant and the adjoining property owner, Mr. Klockemann. The developer and the adjacent property owner went over the plans, in detail, to see if they could come to an agreement regarding the design of the building. The developer did change some of the items; however, the main issue still appears to be the two-story building. Chairman Dickson thanked Mr. Largent and Mr. Klockemann for meeting and trying to resolve some of the problems. Mr. Larry Largent, applicant, stated that he felt the concern of the neighbors has been considered as much as possible in the design of the building. Mr. Largent continued that he will be occupying the majority of the building; that this development will clean-up this area; the building is designed to protect the privacy of the residential neighborhood as much as possible; and, this development will result in the completion of Hamilton Avenue. Commissioner Toshach asked about the dedication of street easements on the property directly to the east of the subject site. Mr. Helms indicated that this property has been dedicated, and agreements have been filed which can be called for by the Council to finish the street. Commissioner Christ asked if the re-arranged parking design affected the parking ratio, and what Staff's position is now on the parking. -9- Mr. Kee noted that there is no affect on the parking ratio with the re-arrangement of spaces; however, the manueverability will be improved because back-up distance has been increased in some areas. Commissioner Toshach asked what about the relationship of this project and the study being done on the relocation of the post office to Llewellyn Avenue. Mr. Kee responded that the site on Llewellyn Avenue has been approved for the construction of an office building; and, that it is his understanding that the City considers this site a suitable possibility for the post office. However, there are no plans presented for this use at this time; what is approved on the Llewellyn site is an office building fronting onto Llewellyn Ave. Mr. Kee noted that the City would ask the post office to present plans to the Council and Commission for comment. Mr. Erwin Klockemann, 467 Carlyn Avenue, stated that he did not think the changes which have been made are enough to make it worthwhile to be before the Commission--there is still a two-story structure on both sides of his house, and no sun for his swimming pool. Mr. Klockemann continued that in reference to the 20' trees, these would also take away from his sun and pool use; the parking on both sides would result in parking out on the residential street; consideration should be given to the 233 people who voted against a two-story; and, the Planning Commission should stay with the previous recommendation denying the project. Commissioner Howard noted that the pool was discussed in the Site Review ___ meeting; and, there will be low growing shrubs, rather than 20' trees; the stairwell has been setback 5' with a sloping wall to minimize any affect on the sun. Although a solar study would have to be done for complete information, the Committee is of the opinion that Mr. Klockemann's property will not lose much sun. Mr. Klockemann noted that there is still a 20' wall which will affect the sun. He stated that he would like to get the Committee to come to his place to see what is really going on. Mrs. Virginia Beckett, 441 N. Carlyn Avenue, stated that a petition was presented with many, many names against this proposal, approving of a one-story building. She continued that the Commission denied a two-story building previously, and asked why they have changed their minds. She continued that it would behoove all to go to Mr. Klockemann's place to see his yard; that his yard is a haven on earth; and that the applicant is making a slum of the area--something he would never do in Saratoga where he lives. Mr. Largent presented pictures taken by Mr. Bykowski, property owner of 310 W. Hamilton Avenue, and noted that the photos showed the sunlight on the adjacent property in the afternoon, as well as the various accidents which have occurred on his property. Mr. Largent added that if this property were being developed with a single family home, it would be allowed to be 35' in height under the zoning ordinance. Mr. Kee stated that this is correct--under the City's zoning regulations a single family home can be up to 35' in height. This building is approximately 26', including the mechanical enclosures. ` Mr. Largent continued that he believed the solar heating would only be affected in January and February, and if one had to depend solely on solar heating for a pool, it would not be feasible to step into the water during these months. Mr. Klockemann stated that the accidents which have happened on the Bykowski property have nothing to do with the issue--a two-story building. He continued that with the current sun, he is able to use his pool from early March until September, but once a 22' building is there, he will only be able to use his pool until June or July, thereby depriving him of two months. Mr. Klockemann added that Mr. Bykowski, in earlier meetings, was very much against a two-story building also, and the minutes of the last meeting stated that Mr. Bykowski was for this development because of the street, but it did not mention the two-story building. Mr. Roaten Hinson, architect, briefly reviewed the project, noting that during early hearings on the development of the Carlyn property it was suggested that the applicant try to work out a plan to development the adjacent property on Hamilton Avenue. He continued that the City Council wants to approve this project and has referred it back to the .Planning Commission to iron out any problems. Mr. Hinson added that the building design, in his opinion, addresses the privacy problems to the maximum possible, as well as most of the Staff's concerns; that the project has a _~ lot of benefits for the City; and, that he would recommend approval. Mrs. Beckett noted that across the street, at 480 Carlyn Avenue, there is quite an extensive business being carried on in a one-story building. M/S: Howard, Toshach - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2304 recommending approval of a zone change from R-1 to PD; and, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2305 recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit for ZC 84-04/PD 84-04, subject. to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Discussion on Motion Commissioner Howard stated that he thought the applicant has finally met the requirements of the City and addressed the concerns of Staff and the Commission. It is still a two-story building, however the developer has met the setbacks of a normal residential project (which could be a two-story). He felt that the applicant has done as much as is possible. Commissioner Fairbanks asked for clarification on the adoption of a PD zoning if the project is not built. -11- Mr. Kee explained that if the Council adopts the Ordinance approving the project, then the applicant is obligated to follow the development schedule. If the development schedule is not adhered to--then there is no longer a project approved on this site. The development would have to come back before the Commission for a reinstatement or it would expire. New plans would require a public hearing again. Commissioner Christ stated that he is against the motion because he did not feel it was proper for a business to have parking access off a residential street. He thought that the traffic situation on Hamilton Avenue would encourage parking on the residential street. Chairman Dickson noted that the developer has greater setbacks than required ,, in that he could have a residential structure of 35'in height, and it could be built right on the property line and it is 13' away. The only time that the pool's sunlight should be affected is in the late afternoon in the winter--perhaps an hour a day at this time of year, and the applicant has agreed to low-growing trees along the back property line. Chairman Dickson stated that, after studying the proposal, he is in favor of the motion. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he understands the sensitivity of the issue before the Commission. Looking at the information provided, there are 8 or 9 homes which are affected by some type of development which is over and above R-1--the office building in back, a church, commercial across the street, etc. This is a fact of life. Commissioner Kasolas continued that he appreciated Chairman Dickson's efforts in meeting with the applicant and the adjacent property owner. He felt that parking on Carlyn Avenue could become a real issue; however, the Commission has in the past tried to balance the problems as much as possible, and that the Commission is pretty responsible to the community and would take action to solve any problems, should they occur. Chairman Dickson noted that there were 233 people who signed a petition against a two-story building; however, he thought that it should be noted that any of the residents could come in for a two-story home and it could be built. This building is 26'--9' lower than what would be allowable for a single family home. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Howard, Toshach, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Christ ABSENT: Commissioners: None. -12- The Commission recessed at 9:05 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:22 p.m. MM 84-26 Continued application of Mr. Shawn Hailey, S. Hailey for approval of a minor modification to allow the remodel and expansion of an existing industrial building into an industrial building accommodating 7,774 sq.ft, of office and 4,234 sq.ft. of warehousing use on property known as 50 Curtner Avenue in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Concerns expressed in the Staff Comment Sheet have been addressed as follows: (1) New drawings were presented at the meeting addressing the dedication, and the elevations.. (2) After lengthy discussion, it was felt that it would not really be feasible to make the driveway a one-way because this would route cars through the motel parking area, and there did not seem to be a solution to this problem. (3) Roll-up doors are being removed, so they will not interfere with the parking spaces. (4) The applicant is willing to put a masonry wall along the property line. (5) The service yard is actually the air-conditioning units. Due to the design of the building, it is more feasible to put these on the side of the property, rather on top of the buildings. The Committee is recommending approval. Commissioner Toshach noted his concern about Section 21.50.10 (D) and how it's provisions would apply to this project. He also asked for the credentials of Barton-Aschmann. Mr. Helms noted that Barton-Aschmann is a nationally known traffic consulting firm which is very highly respected in the traffic field. Mr. Kee explained that the Planning Commission has the authority to approve parking on a property other than the subject project property, provided the parking easement is secured. Condition 23 addresses this concern by requiring the applicant to record this easement on the deed. Commissioner Fairbanks requested that the noise factor be kept in mind regarding the air-conditioners, in that they are being located in an area that is not usual. Commissioner Fairbanks asked if Staff was in agreement with the Site Committee's recommendation. Mr. Kee noted that Staff is of the opinion that the concerns expressed have been addressed, and would be in accord with the Site Committee's recommendation. Mr. Helms indicated that the Public Works Department would also be in accord with the recommendation for approval. -13- M/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission approve MM 84-26, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet, and red-lining of presented plans. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). MM 84-27 Continued application of Mr. Rich Arias Arias, R. ~ for approval of a minor modification to a sideyard setback to allow the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family house on property known as 670 W. Latimer Avenue in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Howard reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval. Commissioner Fairbanks asked if the adjoining property owners had reviewed the plans. Commissioner Howard indicated that correspondence from the adjoining property owner is on file. M/S: Kasolas, Howard - That the Planning Commission approve MM 84-27, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). * « MM 84-28 Application of Mr. William Nelson for a Nelson, W. minor modification to a sideyard setback to allow the construction of a second story addition on property known as 718 Bucknall Avenue in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoninq District. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. A letter from the adjoining property owner is on file. The Site Committee is recommending approval. Commissioner Christ asked about the sideyard setback for this site. Commissioner Howard indicated that the setback is currently 6'; under _. existing setback regulations, a 8.75' setback would be required for the proposed second story. The applicant is requesting a variance to make the second story even with the first story, with a 6' setback. -14- M/S: Kasolas, Toshach - That the Planning Commission approve MM 84-28, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). MM 83-09 Six-month review of approved request for Book, N. modification to approved site plan to allow addition of a car storage container on property known as 921 Camden Avenue in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that the applicant has been contacted regarding his failure to satisfy the conditions of approval, and Staff is recommending that the Commission not give final approval to this storage container due to failure to properly screen this container. Commissioner Howard felt that if the applicant is not willing to satisfy the conditions, then the container should not be approved, and should be removed from the property. M/S: Howard, Christ - That the Planning Commission deny MM 83-09. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). SA 84-54 Sign application of Mr. David Tucker and Tucker, D. Mr. Frank Hinds, on behalf of Linoleum Hinds, F. Dick's, on property known as 2270 S. Bascom Avenue. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval, subject to the condition that all lettering not relating to the business identification be removed. This sign does not fall under the grandfather clause of the sign ordinance because Linoleum Dick's moved from the building for a time, and a permit was not issued for the sign. Mr. Kee noted that the applicant is in agreement with the conditions expressed by the Site Committee. M/S: Perrine, Howard - That the Planning Commission approve SA 84-54 subject to the condition that all lettering not pertaining to the identification of the business be removed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -15- SA 84-55 Sign application of Mr. Scott McVea, on McVea, S. behalf of Park Vasona Chevron, on property known as 3405 S. Winchester Blvd. Commissioner Howard reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending a continuance due to other signage problems on the site. The Committee felt that all these problems should be taken care of at once. M/S: Perrine, Fairbanks - That SA 84-55 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 22, 1985. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0) . Mr. Kee indicated that a letter has been received from the applicant requesting a continuance as well (attached hereto). SA 84-56 Sign application of Mr. Lee Mussman, on Mussman, L. behalf of Mussman Automotive, on property known as 3303 S. Winchester Blvd. Commissioner Howard reported that this application was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval, subject to (1) sign removed within 6 months; (2) sign not placed on sidewalk or public right-of-way; (3) sign not blocking driveways or restricting visibility for ingress/egress; and (4) applicant to work with property owner towards provisions of permanent signage. Commissioner Howard noted that the applicant has an unusual problem regarding a code enforcement action; and, the applicant did remove the sign when asked to do so previously. The removal of the temporary sign has harmed his business considerably, according to the applicant. Commissioner Perrine noted that there is not a free-standing sign on the street which identifies the center, and that the applicant needs identification. Chairman Dickson asked about the banner signs. Mr. Kee responded .that the banner signs would have to be removed. As a result of this morning Site Committee meeting, Staff was in agreement with a temporary sign for six months, and during that time the applicant is to work with the property owner to provide a permanent sign, which would be approved by Staff or the Commission. Mr. Mussman stated that he was in agreement with everything discussed this evening. He commented that his business has dropped considerably since the removal of his temporary sign, and he felt the approval of a temporary sign would give him time to work with the property owner. Mr. Mussman added that the referenced banner was attached to the roll-up door and only in view when the door was open, he was not aware of a problem with the banner. -16- Mr. Kee noted that Staff would check into this situation. Commissioner Christ .asked if the temporary sign would be removed if the applicant is successful in obtaining a permanent sign. Mr. Kee stated that this is the recommendation--whichever comes first, the permanent sign or the six months. Ms. Dorothy Shattock, 391 California St., asked if there was an attempt on the Commission's part to control the aesthetics of temporary signs. She noted that she would volunteer to help the applicant print his sign. Mr. Chet Mallory, Lucot Way, noted that there are several businesses in the area which have banner signs. M/S: Kasolas, Christ - That the Planning Commission approve SA 84-56 subject to conditions indicated above by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). The Commission recessed at 10:05 p.m; the meeting reconvened at 10:10 p.m. Staff Report Staff report regarding residential setbacks and height restrictions in the R1-8 and larger R-1 districts and changes to the Additional Living Unit Ordinance. Mr. Woodworth reviewed at length the research information regarding the number of affected parcels, various setbacks, average lot sizes, and vacant parcels. Commissioner Kasolas noted that a substantial number of homes would become non-conforming under new setbacks, and asked what would happen if a structure was to burn down. Mr. Woodworth indicated that there is a grandfather clause which provides for the rebuilding of a structure as it previously existed. Commissioner Howard asked if a modification to an existing structure would fall under new setback regulations. Mr. Woodworth responded that modifications would have to meet the new requirements. Commissioner Toshach noted that between one-sixth and one-third of the lots would become non-conforming, and he did not understand how that '~~ happened. -17- Mr, Woodworth noted that most of these lots have been in existence for some time, and Staff is unsure how long structures may have been built prior to County regulations. Mr. Kee added that during the MORGA annexations, the City took in about 1,000 units which were built under the County rules. Commissioner Kasolas felt that the Commission must make a decision whether or not a public hearing is necessary, are the changes needed, is there an urgency for legislation to protect whatever. He continued that what is really being said is that you want to take away some rights, and a need must be established for taking this action. Commissioner Kasolas continued that the problems should be isolated and recommendations made on those specific .problems. Additionally, he suggested that all property owners who would end up with non-conforming properties be notified. Commissioner Toshach asked what setbacks would enable the three currently vacant lots that are indicated as difficult to develop to be reasonably developed. Mr. Woodworth indicated that the setbacks being recommended would make it very difficult on those three lots, although an example at this time would be difficult. Commissioner Fairbanks noted that she understood Commisssioner Kasolas' point; however, she .felt that by the Council adopting a moratorium on this particular situation, it indicated to her that this is a matter to be considered by the Commission at a public hearing. Commissioner Fairbanks continued that she would like to re-consider what is presently in the City codes, therefore, she would suggest that the Commission go through the Staff Report one issue at a time and formulate a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Perrine suggested dividing the hearing into two hearings--one for setbacks, and one for additional living units. Motion M/S: Fairbanks, Christ - That a public hearing be held of some portions of the Staff recommendations (specific issues to be identified later in minutes). Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Perrine, Christ, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Toshach ABSENT: Commissioners: None. -18- Discussion on Items Rear Yard Setbacks R1-8 through R1-16 Zonings Commissioner Kasolas asked if, under new setbacks, there is a one-story limitation, and someone with an existing two-story structure wishes to add to his home--could he only add a one-story. Mr. Woodworth responded that the applicant would have to meet the new regulations. The situation could result in a two-story structure dropping down to a one-story structure. Commissioner Howard noted that a 25' setback would make 125 homes non-conforming; a 20' setback would result in 100 homes being non-conforming, etc. There were only 26 signatures on a petition to put this item before the Commission, with more than one signature per home. There are a lot of people who are going to be affected by these proposed regulations. Commissioner Howard stated that he might be in accord with 10-15', but even this would create a real enforcement problem. He felt that a change in the rear yard setbacks was not necessary. Commissioner Kasolas noted that a non-conforming parcel may have difficulty obtaining financing, and these properties are going to change hands. This could result in "red-lining" of many property owners. He asked what is being threatened in this situation, and noted that he did not see a reason to change the rear setbacks. Again, Commissioner Kasolas recommended that everyone affected by this change be personally notified. M/S: Fairbanks, Perrine - That rear yard setbacks for R1-8 or larger parcels be discussed at a public hearing. Amendment to Motion M/S: Kasolas, Howard - Discussion on Amendment That, provided there is to be a public hearing, we further recommend that all affected parcels be notified; specifically those parcels which either, based upon Staff recommendation or San Tomas recommendation, could become non-conforming, be specifically noticed that their property may be (if either recommendation is adopted) or could become a non-conforming use. Commissioner Fairbanks expressed a concern with what could appear to be the singling out of a specific group of people for special notification, thereby creating a problem in the future. Mr. Seligmann indicated that each situation would have to be looked at, and all the facts would have to be the same the second time around to substantiate a charge of not giving equal protection. -19- Commissioner Kasolas felt that it should be looked at from the position that you may be denying people choices, and that it was necessary to give notice since there is no large geographical area that seems to be on the line here. Commissioner Kasolas continued that it is necessary to protect the community and it's citizens. Vote on Amendment AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None Front Yard Setbacks M/S: Perrine, Howard - That the issue of front yard setbacks not be considered for public hearing. Motion carried by the following call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Side Yard Setbacks M/S: Howard, Toshach - Kasolas, Perrine, Howard, Toshach, Dickson Christ, Fairbanks None. That the issue of sideyard setbacks not be considered for public hearing. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Howard, Toshach, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Christ, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None. -20- Height Limitations M/S: Howard, Perrine - That the issue of height limitations for R1-8 through R1-16 zonings not be considered in a public hearing. Motion carried with the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Howard, Toshach, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Christ, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Additional Living Units M/S: Perrine, Howard - That the issue of setbacks and height restrictions for additional living units be considered at a public hearing. Motion carried with the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: None. ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Accessory Buildings and Garages M/S: Kasolas, Fairbanks - That the issue of accessory building and garages be considered at a public hearing. Motion carried with the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: None. ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Non-Conforming Buildings M/S: Perrine, Fairbanks - That the issue of non-conforming buildings be considered at a public hearing. Motion carried with the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: None. ABSENT: Commissioners: None. -21- Motion Regarding Division of Hearings M/ Perrine, - That a recommendation be made to the City Council to divide the subject issues into two hearings--one for additional living units, and one for setbacks. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Milton Brown questioned the setback issue and noted that the majority of the people living in the San Tomas Area did not wish to come into the City. Staff Report Staff Report regarding item brought up at Planning Commission meeting of November 22, 1984--truck parking on Hamilton/Llewellyn Avenues. Mr. Kee reported that this problem has been brought to the attention of the Police Department. and the Public Works Department. Mr. Helms indicated that if the Police Department is unable to resolve the matter by usual channels, the Public Works Department will post "no parking" signs in the area. OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY THE COMMISSION M/S: Fairbanks, Howard - That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2306, as a special resolution, commending Commissioner and Mrs. Kasolas on the fine job they did on the annual dinner meeting. Motion carried unanimously, with Commissioner Kasolas abstaining. Commissioner Howard stated that he felt Staff should be allowed to vote on this resolution also. Mr. Kee noted that Staff would be doing a separate resolution. Mr. Woodworth indicated that a report will be forthcoming regarding 236 W. Campbell Avenue, as requested by Commissioner Fairbanks, in that it will be necesssary to have the traffic engineer take a look at the site. * ~ -22- Nominations and Election of Planning Commission Officers for 1985. Chairman Commissioner Christ nominated Commissioner Fairbanks for the position of Chairperson for 1985. Commissioner Perrine nominated Commissioner Howard for the position of Chairperson for 1985. M/S: Toshach, Fairbanks - That the nominations for the position of Chairman be closed. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion of Nominations Commissioner Fairbanks commented that in the past it has been an unwritten policy to reotate the Chair of the Commission. As some Commissioners are aware, that policy was set aside last year. There are some among us who would like to return to that policy, and that is the appropriate way for the Commission to act. Commissioner Fairbanks continued that the setting aside of this policy has caused some difficulties, namely there is currently a Vice-Chairman who would normally pass into the Chair's seat. The Commission should consider nominating that position once again if they choose to return to that policy. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the election of the current Vice-Chairman would cause two people to be out of synchronization. Commissioner Howard stated that he would have no problem with staying in the Vice-Chairman position to allow the other nominee to fill the position of Chairman, because of the situation which arose. Commissioner Howard continued that whatever decision was made by the Commission would be ameniable with him. He felt that the Commission should correct the synchronization, and that the rotation system was the only true way to fill the Chair position. Commissioner Howard concluded that the rotation system keeps politics out of the situation, and he would like to see politics kept off the Commission. Vote on Nominations The Planning Commission unanimously elected Commissioner JoAnn Fairbanks to the position of Chairperson for 1985. Vice-Chairman The Planning Commission unanimously elected Commissioner Wesley Howard to the position of Vice-Chairman for 1985. -23- Commissioner Howard indicated that he would be unable to serve full-time on the Site and Architectural Review Committee for the coming year because of business commitments. T~ il.TT1TTRNMF.NT M/S: Perrine, Toshach - That the Planning Commission meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 11:18 p.m. APPROVED: J. DuWayne Dickson Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary OONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: TS 84-03, Lands of Regency Monarch APPLICANT: Nowack $ Associates SITE ADDRESS: 833-51 E. Hamilton Ave. P.C. Meeting: 12-11-84 1. Installation of a sanitary seweage system to serve all lots within the subdivision in conformance with the proposed plans of the County of Santa Clara Sanitation District No. 4. Sanitary sewerage service to be provided by said District No. 4. 2. Installation of a water distribution system to serve all lots within the subdivision in conformance with the plans of the San Jose Water Works. Water service to be provided by said water company. Fire hydrants and appurtenances shall be provided and installed at the locations specified by the Fire Chief, Fire Department, City of Campbell. Fire hydrant maintenance fees shall be paid to City at the rate of $195 per fire hydrant. 3. Subdivider shall create or provide any public service easement and any other public utility and/or public service easements as may be necessary for the installation of any and all public utilities and/or facilities. 4. Compliance with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions of the Campbell Municipal Code. i 5. C.C.~R.'s to be approved by City Engineer to insure provisions for maintenance of buildings and common area. 6. Provide a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 7. Obtain an excavation permit and pay fees and deposit for all work in the public right of way. 8. Participate in the cost of required signal modifications of Bascom Avenue at Hamilton Avenue. 9. Nbdify driveways per requirements of City Engineer. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 94-22 APPLICANT: Riedinger, M. (Design ~ Engineering Systems) SITE ADDRESS: 1597 ~ 1599 Dell Ave. P. C. MTG. 12-1i-94 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 colors and materials; window treatment; screening of roof equipment on existing and proposed buildings; prior to application for a building permit. 2. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on the plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. 3. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of (5,000.00 to insure landscaping, fencing, and -- striping of parking areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed with the Planning Department .prior to application for a building permit. 6. Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PG8~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, limiting the use of the property as (allows: 16,530 sq. ft. warehousing/manufacturing use and 31,200 sq. ft. office use -- prior to application far a building permit 8. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 9. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. 10. A11 parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Cade. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. _ .' li. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. CONDITION5 OF APPROVAL: S B4-22 APPLICANT: Riedinger, M. (Design ~ Engineering Systems) SITE ADDRESS: 1587 ~ 1599 Dell Ave. P. C. MTG. 12-11-64 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 submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign Ordinance far 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 ^ade 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 Greats) 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. 1 i. 201 ~ 1 i. 414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. PIJHLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 18. Process and file a parcel nap to combine the two lots. 19. Participate financially in the amount of (24,000 toward the construction of a future traffic signal at Hacienda/Dell Ave. intersection. 20. Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees, and post surety to relocate driveway and any other work in the public right-of-way. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-22 APPLICANT: Riedinger, M. (Design ~ Engineering Systems) SITE ADDRESS: 1587 ~ 1599 Dell Ave. P. C. MTG. 12-11-84 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-22 APPLICANT: Riedinger, M. ~' SITE ADDRESS: 1587 ~ 1599 Dell Ave. PAGE 3 FIRE_DEPARTMENT 21. Provide automatic sprinkler systems far both buildings. Systems shall be monitored by Central Station alarm canpany. 22. Provide two on-site fire hydrants adjacent to north and south driveways. 23. Parking shall be prohibited in driveways other than in designated parking spaces. Signs shall be posted along driveways reading "Fire Lane -- No Parking." BUILDING DEPARTMENT 24. No comments at this time. L,~~ , ' ;' MR. Gonzales 10`7 W.PARR Campbell Ca. 950;$ Dear Mr. Willson, We have reviewed your plans detailing living unit of 6A0 square feet and set from rear and side property lines. We do not have any objections to this an additional back 5 feet proposal. Yours Truly, ate. ~~ ~~ -i~-~~ ~C~ ~~ >~; ~ ~~ ~ J ~~\~~~~i~~_~f ~ ~ ~y A i~ r/1 ////~i'C/~/ Jl G~ (/ . G •jpsodo.~d sTy~ o~ suoT~aaCgo buE anEy you op aM •saurj ct~,sadosd ap;s pue sEa.x ao.x~ ~aa~ 5 ~aeq has puE ~aa~ asEnbs Ob9 ~o zTUn 8urnrj jeuot~zpp~ us Surf=E~ap suEjd .~no~t paMazna.z aney aM 'uosjj;~ •.xW .zEan 84~~6 "g~ jTagdu~e~ an~jEHpds~Wa~u~Z~.~W .,/-~~~° ~~ ~~L~~ i ~Y - ~ ~. Mr. Monda J.o$2Lucot Way Casncb~ell Ca. 95006.? Dear Mr. Willson, We have reviewed your puns detailing an additional living unit of ~i40 square feet and set back 5 feet from rear and side property lines. We do not have any objections to this proposal. Yours Truly, ,~: f ....__.. .„ ,_ a t ~7 ~ - ~~ ,. ~ ~ ~~ ,~ J Cam.-Z~2 /~ //~~'~ ~~ ,u~4 ,ry i Dear Mr. Willson, We have reviewed your plans detailing living unit of 640 square feet and set from rear and side property lines. We do not have any objections to this Yours Truly, ~/ ~~~' ,J,. Mr. and Mrs. Shepard 1074 Lucot Wy. Campbell Ca. 95008 an additional back 5 feet proposal. ~/C,~//// ~~. . ~,,,~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: M 84-26 APPLICANT: BAILEY, S. 12/11/84 SITE ADDRESS: 50 CURTNER AVE. P.C. MTG. 11/27/84 The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the Laws of the State of California. 1. Revised east and west elevations and site plan to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Site and Architectural Review Committee and/or the Planning Commission prior to application for a building permit. 2. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in 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. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of rear solid masonry wall to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $2,000 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within 3 months of completion of construction; or (2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed with the Planning Department prior to application for a building permit. 6. Applicant to 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: 7,774 sq.ft. of office. use; and 4,234 sq.ft. of industrial/warehouse use. 8. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 9. Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. 10. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: MM 84-26 PAGE 2 OF 3 13. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by Planning and Building Departments (Section 21.68.030 of i, 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. A11 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 they property. Sect. 11.201 & 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. FIRE DEPARTMENT 18. Recommendation for approval only with retrofit of sprinkler system. (Sect. 10.309(b)G UFC) 19. Because the total square footage with the addition exceeds 10,000 sq.ft., an automatic sprinkler system shall be provided for the entire structure. System shall be monitored by a central station alarm company. 20. Access driveway shall be posted as a fire lane with parking prohibited except in marked spaces. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 21. Dedicate an additional 5 feet across the frontage. 22. Remove the north westerly 8 ft. x 11 ft, portion of the existing building as shown in red on site plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: MM 84-26 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PAGE 3 OF 3 23. Applicant to record an easement .allowing access between the motel and the subject bolding and to allow the shared use of ten parking spaces on the motel site. Easement to meet the approval of the City Attorney and be so written that it cannot be given up without the approval of the City of Campbell. All shared spaces to be properly signed to indicate joint use. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 24. No comments. ITD;4 N0. 12 Chevron ,, Park Vasona Chevron Service ~ 3405 Winchester Blvd., Campbell, CA 95008 Telephone 378-6961 ,,~ December 10, 1984 City of Campbell 70 North First. Street Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Mr. Arthur A. Ree: As per our phone conversation of December 10, 1984, regarding the notice I received informing me of two meetings scheduled for Tuesday, December 11, 1984 at 11:15 a.m. with the Site & Architectural Committee and at 8:30 p.m. with the Planning Commission. To review my request for a sign application. As I explained to you Mr. Ree, I did not receive this notice until ., December 10th. Due to such short notice I will be unable to attend these meetings. I have prior commitments which I can not change on such short notice. Had I been informed of these meetings in advance I would have had no problem in changing my commitments. I would very much like to discuss this matter with the Site & Architectural Committee and the Campbell Planning Commission. In consulting my schedule I find that the next date that I will be available is January 22, 1985. Sincerely, Scott McVea,Manager Park Vasona Chevron ~ ~~~od~ ~ DEC 11 ~ggq CITY OF CAMPBELL PL'ANNINO DEPARTMENT