Loading...
PC Min 11/13/1984PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES November 13, 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, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Fairbanks, Dickson; Planning Director Arthur A. Kee, Planner II Marty Woodworth, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney J. Robert Dempster, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee reported that communications received pertained to specific agenda items and would be presented at that time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Howard, Christ - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 23, 1984 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 84-22 Application of Mr. Michael Riedinger, Riedinger, M. 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 Perrine reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending a continuance in order that a traffic report may be submitted. Commissioner Toshach asked what criteria establishes the need for a traffic report. Mr. Helms explained that Staff looks at an area with regard to existing development, future development, and congestion factors. If an impact on the current traffic is anticipated, then a traffic report is requested. -2- Commissioner Kasolas noted that the amount required under Condition 5 as a faithful performance bond appeared to be inadequate to cover what is required. Mr. Kee indicated that this amount could be increased without any problem= and, he noted that Staff has not experienced any problems in this area in recent years. M/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That S 84-22 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 27, 1984 in order that a traffic report may be submitted by the applicant. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). MM 84-25 Application of Mr. Rick Duplan for a re- R 84-11 instatement of previously approved plans Duplan, R. to allow the construction of an industrial building on property known as 390 Industrial Ave. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval „ subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report as well as the addition of a condition which will provide for revised elevations to illustrate, to the satisfaction of the Architectural Advisor, better harmony between the front and _^ back buildings. Commissioner Christ noted that the site is extremely small and the structure - actually abuts the property line on three sides, therefore, landscaping is minimal and is provided in the front of the project. M/S: Kasolas, Howard - POBLIC HEARINGS PD 84-03 Kavanaugh, L. That MM 84-25/R 84-11 be approved subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet, as well as the addition of a condition providing for revised plans to address concerns of the Site Committee. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Continued public hearing to consider the application of Linda Kavanaugh, on behalf of Barry Swenson Builders, for approval of a Planned Development ,Permit and approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the remodel of an existing building on property known as 600 E. Hamilton Ave. in a PD (Planned Development) Zoning District. -3- Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Site Committee expressed a concern with the entry wall treatment, and this is addressed by an addition to Condition C which provides for a revised entry wall design and landscaping plan to be __ approved by the Site Committee. Commissioner Fairbanks expressed concern with the proposed color of the entry wall. Commissioner Perrine responded that .the color. was not discussed. There is a considerable amount of vegetation that blocks the view of this site, and it is not known how much of the wall will be seen. The Committee would like to see the wall opened up to reveal some of the landscaping area proposed behind it. Commissioner Fairbanks asked what will be going on in the building. Mr. Kee explained that the same uses are proposed as what was previously approved in 1977, which is essentially storage in the major part of the building. Retail sales was also part of the 1977 approval: however, under this new application, office space is proposed for the former retail space--approximately 64,500 sq.ft. Condition H speaks to the use of the property. The applicant's statement indicates office and warehousing use for the building. Staff is recommending that the same distribution as previously approved in 1977, so that there Ys no misunderstanding as to what the building may be used for in the future. Commissioner Fairbanks asked if the presented plans were consistent with Condition H. Mr. Kee indicated that they would be consistent, although a mezzanine has not yet been constructed. Commissioner Fairbanks asked if the proposed parking ratio is consistent with the previous and/or proposed use. Mr. Kee stated that there would be a difference between what was previously approved and what is being proposed, in that the parking code has changed since the building was constructed--from 1:150 to 1:225 for office use, which is a less intense parking requirement. Additionally, the parking code now allows 40$ compact stalls. Mr. Kee concluded that Staff is satisfied with the parking ratio, and feels it will be adequate to meet the needs of this development as stated by the applicant. Commissioner Fairbanks requested further information regarding the requested traffic report. Mr. Helms reported that the necessary data is anticipated shortly, and Staff is not expecting anything in the report. that would preclude the kind of use which is being applied for. Staff is looking at how traffic serving this use might differ from traffic in the past, specifically truck movements and whether they will impact the commute hours.- When the information is received, Staff may -4- have some mitigation measures that will be required off-site to handle any impacts. However, it is not known if this will apply in this case. Staff is saying they have no reservations about the on-site modifications and, therefore, can recommend approval at this time. Commissioner Fairbanks noted that although this proposed use may appear to be _ much the same as previously approved, she felt the use may turn out to be more intense. Commissioner Fairbanks ,asked what measures might be taken to provide off-site mitigation should this use become more intense. Commissioner Toshach asked what form of agreement would be provided to insure that the applicant would abide by any mitigation measures determined. Mr. Helms noted that mitigation measures would become part of the ordinance, and the ordinance is attached to the property. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Commissioner Howard stated that he felt it would appropriate to continue this item until the traffic report was submitted, in that he has reservations about making a determination without all the information. He noted that 64,000 sq.ft. of office space could have a significant impact on commute traffic. Commissioner Fairbanks asked if the traffic report would be available to the Council when they consider this item. Mr. Helms stated that Staff would be be prepared to agendize this item for hearing before the Council until a reported is submitted which satisfies the concerns of Staff. Linda Kavanaugh, applicant, stated that 27,000 sq.ft. of office space will be used by Apple Computers for their worldwide headquarters and distribution. The anticipated number of employees is 60-80. The balance of the square footage will be used for storage facilties. Ms. Kavanaugh continued that the forthcoming traffic report should indicate approximately 12 truck trips daily. Commissioner Kasolas asked the applicant if any retail sales are anticipated at this location. Ms. Kavanaugh responded that retail sales were "not presently" anticipated; however, she did not know what future plans Apple Computers might have for this location. Part of the building will be used for small parts inventory, and there is a testing area for overseas computers. There will be no retail sales and no customer pick-up. Commissioner Howard repeated his concerns regarding the traffic report, noting that the Commission has been taken advantage too many times. Mr. Dempster stated that this is a continuance of a similar use, and he questions how much can be asked in terms of mitigations when you have a continued use. Mr. Dempster continued that he did not think the Council has taken the stand that when you have a continued use that we have been laying down too many mitigation measures from a particular applicant--it would be no different than if another store came in for a change in their building. He -5- concluded that he didn't know how much you can get involved in traffic mitigation. His understanding is that the designated uses are the same as previously approved. Mr. Kee stated that the use is less intense than previously; however, what Staff is relating is that the approval should remain the same as far as floor area. The applicant has indicated less intensity than what was in the building before. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the previous use was for "predominantly retail with warehousing associated". It now appears to be more of an industrial warehousing use with associated work. He asked if this type of use really belonged on the main street of the City. Mr. Kee reviewed the space utilization, indicating that the previously approved use for the site is 64,500 sq. ft. for showroom and offices. This is what is being proposed with this application, but there will not be 64,500 sq.ft. of office space--there will be less. Approximately 91,400 sq.ft. would be used for cube storage, which is essentially warehousing. Chairman Dickson asked what changes might be indicated in the traffic report if the use of the site has not appreciably changed. Mr. Helms responded that Staff has requested an analysis of what might happen with this operation, regarding quality and quantity, and how it will affect what is existing in the area. Commissioner Fairbanks felt, based upon our parking ratios and Apple Computers, that a more intense use will be seen in this building. She asked if mitigation measures could be obtained from the developer at some future date should the need arise as a result of a change in intensity on this site. Mr. Helms cited the recently approved office building on Bascom Avenue, noting that mitigation measures were conditioned to be provided in the future as needed. It is up to the City Attorney to determine if what Staff recommends is appropriate. Commissioner Fairbanks noted she felt uneasy without a traffic report, and that she was concerned with forwarding this item to the Council without seeing this report. Commissioner Howard asked if there were any time constraints pertaining to this application. Mr. Kee indicated that there were no time constraints on the Commission or Staff at this point. Ms. Kavanaugh noted that Apple Computers is schedule to take occupancy of the building on December 1, and that there is still work to be completed. She requested a decision on the item. Commissioner Toshach asked the applicant if she was aware of the need for additional information on the traffic report. -6- Ms. Kavanaugh stated that she learned of the need for additional information last Thursday. Staff has been communicating with the traffic consultant and she was not aware of any deficiencies. Commissioner Kasolas suggested that, if it the desire of the Commission to continue this item, that the Site Committee look into the matter of the color on the entry wall. Chairman Dickson noted that the applicant has agreed to change to color of the wall to an earthtone. He continued that, on the basis that this use is the same as that previously approved, he would be willing to recommend forwarding it to Council. He added that he also felt that the traffic information should be in the Commission's hands before something is forwarded to Council. Commissioner Kasolas suggested polling the Commission regarding their desires. He felt that the item should be continued in order that the issues of traffic, the color of the entry wall, and the impact of changing from a retail use to an industrial warehousing use would have on the community. Commissioner Perrine stated that he was prepared to act on this item. Commissioner Christ stated that he was also prepared to act on this item. He felt that the traffic conditions were covered under the Conditions of Approval; and, that he was looking forward to this type of use at this location in that there was already enough impact from the current retail uses on this street. Commissioner Howard expressed his concern that a traffic report has not be completed satisfactorily to Staff, and that he did not like to send an application on to the Council when there were still problems. Commissioner Howard noted that it would be possible to house 180 people in this much office space, which could have a significant impact. However, since there appears to be no change in the layout, he felt he could take action this evening. Commissioner Toshach stated that he would be in favor of a continuance to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide the necessary information. He added that he would not vote to approve this item this evenings. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she was prepared to move the item. M/S: Kasolas, Fairbanks - That the public hearing on PD 84-03 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). M/S: Fairbanks, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt RESOLOTION NO. 2297 recommending approval of PD 84-03, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet, with the addition of a condition requiring the applicant to submit revised plans of the entry wall and landscape plan, and the change in color of the entry wall to earthtone for approval of the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Toshach ABSENT: Commissioners: None. -7- MISCELLANEOUS Staff .Report Appointment of Architectural Advisor. Mr. Kee reported that Mr. William Fisher has .resigned as the Architectural Advisor, and Mr. Fisher has recommended Mr. Craig Mineweaser, A.I.A., to fill this voluntary position. Staff is recommending this appointment for a period of one year. Mr. Mineweaser introduced himself to the Commission, and noted he is looking forward to working with them. M/S: Howard, Kasolas - That the Planning Commission appoint Mr. Craig Mineweaser, A.I.A., to the position of Architectural Advisor for a period of one year. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). The Commission recessed at 8:25 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at Ss35 p.m. w PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 84-15 Continued public hearing to consider the Medlin, R. application of Mr. Robert Medlin for a use permit and approval of plans and elevations to allow the conversion of a single-family home to an office on property known as 2305 S. Winchester .Blvd. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) .Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The City Council has granted permission for this structure to remain occupied while the use permit request is being considered. The Committee spent a great deal of time discussing the parking and the doors on the garage parking area; and, is recommending approval subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet, with the .addition of a condition which provides that the property owner will sign an agreement indicating that in the event additional parking is required, the owner will be responsible for the converting of the proposed garage spaces into carports or uncovered parking spaces. Commissioner Toshach asked if the creation of additional parking on-.site would decrease the amount of landscaping for this project. Commissioner Perrine indicated that the provision of off-street parking spaces out-weighed the need for landscaping on this site, and the Committee was of the - opinion that the site has adequate landscaping. I -8- M/S: Howard, Toshach - That the Planning Commission adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2298 accepting the Negative Declaration prepared for the application= and, that UP 84-15 be approved subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet, with the addition of a condition addressing the concern regarding conversion of the garage parking spaces to carport or uncovered spaces in the event it should be determined by the Planning Director that on-site parking for this development is inadequate. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. * w ZC 84-OS Wong, T. Public hearing to consider the applica- tion of Mr. Timothy Wong, on behalf of Wong & Associates, for approval of a zone change from PD (Planned Development) to C-PD (Condominium-Planned Development) to allow the conversion of an office building into condominium offices= and, approval of a modification to the approved elevations allowing the placement of a brick veneer on the building exterior on property known as 910 Campisi Way. Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee does not have a problem with the brick veneer, noting that it will enhance the appearance of this buildingf and, the Committee is recommending approval of the zone change. Mr. Woodworth noted that a request for continuance has been .received in order that the applicant can obtain financing. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Fairbanks, Toshach - That ZC 84-05 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of November 27, 1984, at the request of the applicant. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Commissioner Toshach asked for confirmation that the request for continuance was received from the applicant's representative. Mr. Kee indicated that this was correct. a * 9~ -9- MISCELLANEOUS Staff Report Staff report regarding A-frame signs. Mr. Kee reviewed this item for the Commission, noting that Staff is of the opinion that the Commission has the authority, under Section 21.68.140, to approve A-frame signs if it so desires. An applicant could submit an application for an A-frame sign and the Commission could consider it in the normal manner. However, if the Commission desires, a use permit procedure could also be drafted. Staff is not supportive of this approach because of the additional cost ($350 rather than $40 for a sign application) and the additional time involved. Staff is recommending that the Commission adopt a policy to consider A-frame (movable) signs for a limited period of time under Section 21.68.140. Commissioner Fairbanks expressed her concern that the application process might be abused by a person continually refacing the A-frame and re-applying. Commissioner Kasolas indicated his satisfaction with knowing that a procedure existed by which someone could apply for these type of signs. Mr. Kee noted that Staff is of the opinion that by adopting a policy as recommended, that such a procedure will help in the enforcement of illegal A-frame signs. Commissioner Christ asked if there would be an appeal procedure available. Mr. Kee stated that a decision may be appealed to the City Council. Commissioner Christ agreed with the opinion that charging the use permit fee of $350 would encourage the illegal use of these movable signs= however, he felt it necessary that there be a way of assuring that these signs are temporary. Mr. Kee responded that the approval could be conditioned, and if desired by the Commission, a bond could be posted guarantying the removal of the sign. M/S: Howard, Christ - That the Planning Commission adopt a policy to consider A-frame signs for a limited length of time under Section 21.68.1.40. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). * * t -10- Staff Report Staff report regarding residential , setbacks and height restrictions in the R1-8 and larger R1 districts and changes to the Additional Living Unit ordinance. Mr. Woodworth reviewed this report for the Commission, noting that the report presents recommendations from representatives from the San Tomas .Area (as directed by Council) and from Staff. He noted that the Council has placed a moratorium on the processing of R-1 residential applications until final action resulting from this study is concluded. Commissioner Perrine asked if these regulations would make most of the lots in the City non-conforming, and if you could add onto a non-conforming structure. Commissioner Christ stated that he would like to see something which called for notification of adjoining property owners when a second story or accessory buildings is proposed. Commissioner Howard stated that he felt the recommended change in height from 35' to 30 was totally unfair. The results would be large homes with lower roof-lines. Commissioner Kasolas felt that these restrictions would limit a person s choice, and provide all flat-top roofs.. It would seem appropriate, if one had a larger lot, to have 2-1/2 stories and leave as much open space around you as possible. He continued that when the rear setback is 10', it results in 20' between structures due to the setback of the adjoining property. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it would appear that these recommendations are the result of one areas concerns, and the Commission should not be a position. of imposing these restrictions on the entire community when one area is unique and has a specific problem. Chairman Dickson asked if the recommendations regarding additional living units would prevent someone from adding a second story and using it for an additional living unit. Commissioner Toshach asked about the County setbacks, and restrictions on garages and accessory buildings in the County areas. Mr. Woodworth explained that the primary difference between the garages or accessory buildings having one setback, and the additional living units having a different setback, would be that the additional living unit might infringe on an adjacent property more than a garage, and thus a larger setback is needed. Chairman Dickson suggested that a public hearing be agendized, and at that time the Commission will have the opportunity to choose between the different recommendations. Commissioner Toshach stated that the Commission would not want to penalize residents of this area because they were annexed into the City. He continued that it appears that the existing regulations have proved to be fair= the issues presented this evening appear to be a "bounded" problem= and there have been no reasons given for lowering the height limitations from 35'. Commissioner Toshach concluded that he would like Staff to recognize these comments and modify their recommendations to make them concur with current ~ i regulations. -11- Commissioner Kasolas asked if there was a need to review these issues through public hearing at this time, in that the Council has .requested only that the issues be reviewed. He asked if the Commission might not be encouraging the elimination of R1 lots because of the restrictions. Commissioner Christ stated that he felt the Commission has a responsibility to act on these issues, as well as a responsibility to receive input. He continued that there has been action to change the zoning to help retain the larger lot .sizes, and the setback issue is a continuation of these zoning actions. Commissioner Christ noted that these people living in this area bought their property because of the size and the desire to maintain privacy. He added that the Commission should discuss some of the points presented before this is agendized for public hearing in order to give Staff a clearer direction as to where the Commission is headed. Commissioner Howard felt that the majority of people expressing these concerns live in a one or two block area, a small pocket. The Commission has not heard from the majority of the residents. Commissioner Christ felt that the majority of people living in the San Tomas Area wanted large lots, and most of them have these concerns. The people who don't have these concerns are those who bought the large lots hoping to split them at some time. He noted that the zoning changes in this area were a result of the residents desires. Commissioner Fairbanks suggested that the Commission look at each item and forward the information to the Council. She noted that this item is a referral from the City Council, and they are expecting information back. Commissioner Kasolas felt that a different line of questions has come from this evening's discussion--questions regarding impact, number of lots affected, existing development, general plan designations for the impacted lots, redevelopment possibilities, areas which have been incorporated from the County, and grandfathering. He felt that the Commission could do a better job if additional information were available, and that the Commission should not be raising questions at the public hearing. Commissioner Kasolas expressed a concern about lots which are long and narrow, or lots which are shaped differently from the average parcel. Chairman Dickson suggested a continuance in order to gather further information. Commissioner Toshach questioned the order of the staff recommendation. Mr. Ree explained that this item is a referral from the City Council and they would like information back if possible. A public hearing is necessary to change the zoning code. Commissioners Toshach and Christ indicated that they were prepared to go through these issues this evening. Commissioner Howard disagreed, noting that he would like to see the whole scope including a land use inventory. -12- M/S: Howard, Toshach - Staff Report Planning Commission continue this item to the meeting of December 11, 1984. Motion carried with a vote of (6-1-0), with Commissioner Christ voting "no". * * ~ Staff report regarding the Planning Commission meeting of December 25, 1984. It was the consensus of the Commission to cancel the normally scheduled meeting of December 25, 1984. * * ,r OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT IIP BY THE COMMISSION Commissioner Fairbanks asked Staff to investigate a safety hazard regarding the driveway at 236 W. Campbell Avenue. ADJOURNMENT M/S: Howard, Christ - That the Planning Commission be adjourned. Meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m. APPROVED: J. DuWayne Dickson Chainaan ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: M 84-25/R 84-11 APPLICANT:. Duplan, R. SITE ADDRESS: 390 Industrial Ave. P.C. ?lTG. 11-13-84 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 end 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 Site and Architectural Review Committee andfor Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. Fencing plan indicating location and design detail8 of fencing to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Applicant to either (1> post a faithful performance bond in the amount of 52,000.00 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within 3 months. of completion of construction; or (2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas. Bond or agreement to be filed with the Planning Department prior ___ to application for a building permit. 5. Applicant to submit a plan to the Planning Department, prior to installation of PG&E utility (transformer) bores, indicating the location of the boxes and screening (if bores are above ground) for approval of the Planning Director. 6. Applicant to submit a letter to the Planning Department, satisfactory to the City Attorney, limiting the use of the property as follows: 6i2 sq.ft. of office space and 1,347 sq.ft. of industrial/warehouse use -- prior to application for a building permit. 7. All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility. meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 8. Building occupancy Will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. 9. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. 10. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. Z of 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: M 84-25/R 84-11 APPLICANT: Duplan, R. SITE ADDReSS: 390 Industrial Ave. P.C. MTG. 11-13-84 11. Plans submitted to the Building Department .for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. 12. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign Ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by Planning and Building Departments (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code>. 23. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any con:.ract 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 t„o all single-family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial,bllSlrieSS industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. 14. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level and have a level area adjacent to the trash enclosure area to service these containers. 15. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. 16. The applicant is hereby notified that the property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. All existing structures shall be secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201& 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 17. Provide copy of Preliminary Title Report. 18. Pay storm drainage area fee. 19. Provide grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the City Engineer. 20. Obtain excavation perA,it, pay fees, and post surety for all work in the public right-of-way. 21. Driveway approach is to be a minimum of 20 ft. wide and 5 ft. from the --_ property line. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ------------------- 22. Construction to begin within 4 months from date of approval and completed I year thereafter or permit shall be void. 2 of 2 _-