PC Min 10/09/1984Planning Commissioner
City of Campbell, California
7:30 P.M. MINUTES OCTOBER 9, 1984
The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular
session at the regular meeting place, the Council Chambers of the City Hall,
70 N. First St., Campbell, California.
ROLL CALL
Present Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard
Toshach, Fairbanks, Dickson; Planning Director
Arthur A. Kee, Principal Planner Philip J.
Stafford, F.~gineering T4anager Bill Helms, City
Attorney J. Robert I~mpster, Recording Secretary
Linda llennis .
Absent None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A~I/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
of September 25, 1984 be approved as submitted.
Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0).
OCJMn'I[JNI CATIONS
Pte. Kee reported that communications received pertained to specific items on
the agenda and would be discussed at that time.
Chairman Dickson welcomed newly appointed Commissioner Toshach to the
Comniss ion.
~~~
ARCHTTECTURAL APPROVALS
NM 84-22 Continued application of Mr. James Miller, on
Spoons Restaurant behalf of Spoons Restaurants, Inc., for approval
of a minor modification to allow the construction
of an addition of approximately 350 sq.ft. to an
existing restaurant located on property known as
1555 S. Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial)
Zoning District.
Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was before the Site and Architect-~
Ural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval subject to con-
ditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet.
Mr. Kee indicated that the proposed modification is for an outside seating
area for people waiting to get into the restaurant.
-2-
T1/S: Howard, Perrine - That the Planning Commission approve MM 84-22,
subject to conditions indicated in the Staff
comment sheet. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0).
*~s~
S 84-20 Application of:hir.'Raymond Rooker for approval of ..
Rooker, R, plans and elevations to allow the remodel of an
existing building on property known as 1625 w.
Campbell Ave. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial)
Zoning District.
Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the
Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee spent considerable
time exploring alternative parking layouts and landscaping for the project,
and the plan presented appears to be the best than can be done. The Committee
has redlined one area on the plans, and the applicant is in agreement with this
change. Essentially, the Committee did not see any way to gain additional
landscaping without affecting the parking ratio. There is a landscaping strip
being added in the rear of the site which will increase the percentage.
Commissioner Kasolas asked what the normal landscaping percentages would be
for this type of development.
Mr. Kee responded that normally anew development is required to have a minimtnn
of 10~ landscaping of the net lot area after the building area is subtracted.
However, this is an existing building and to increase the landscaping percen-
tage would adversely affect the parking ratio. Staff is recoirnnending approval,
in that this is an existing building, and is requiring that the ~xmsting Land-
scaping be up-graded.
M/S: Christ, Howard - That the Planning Commission approve S 84-20, subject
to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet,
as well as red-lining of plans. Motion carried un-
animously (7-0-0).
* ~ ~
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ZC 84-04 Continued public hearing to consider the application
PD 84-04 of Mr. Larry Largent for a zone change from R-1 (Single
Largent, L. Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development/ Pro-
fessional 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 property
known as 481 Carlyn Avenue and 310 tid. Hamilton Avenue.
Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Perrine discussed the concerns
which were addressed by the applicant--no objection of the Committee regard-
ing the plainness of the rear elevations in that the design addresses the
concern for residential privacy; applicant will to match building materials
of the wall to that being used by the adj scent Southbayc :pY~oj ectS~. ;the number
-3-
of enclosed parking spaces has been changed from six to three; the appli-
cant is willing to deal with the consequences of the number of stalls
which are marked "compact :only"; and, the applicant is willing to indi-
cate the three parking spaces off the Carlyn Ave. driveway which are.
difficult to get in and out of as "employee only" spaces. In conclusion,
the applicant has expressed a desire to Trove this application forward.
Therefore, the Site Committee is bringing this project to the Commission
without a recommendation.
Commissioner Toshach asked what the General Plan designation is for this
site.
Air. Kee indicated that the Council has recently (July) taken first reading
of an ordinance to change the General Plan from R-1 to P-0 (Professional
Office) for the Carlyn Ave. parcel. Council policy for Hamilton Ave. in-
dicates commercial and high density uses.
Commissioner Christ requested clarification regarding the access from
the parking area on Carlyn Ave.
Mr. Helms noted that it is the City's policy not to allow two driveways
onto Hamilton Avenue from one site. This policy is to minimize conflicts
in turning movements onto arterial streets.
Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the
audience to speak for or against this item.
Suzanne Auger, 4~3 N. Carlyn Ave.,
the issued discussed at the meetin
there have been conflicting stories
is still for a two-story structure;
previously presented; and that the
the neighbors into consideration.
on behalf of the neighborhood, tha
spoke against this project, and reviewed
g of September 11. Ms. Auger noted that
regarding this project; that the design
that the parking ratio is the same as
developer has not taken the concerns of
She concluded that she would recommend,
t this project be denied.
Chairman Dickson noted that a letter has been received from the Principal
at Rosemary School, across the street from this project. The Recording
Secretary read the letter into the record (attached hereto).
Commissioner Perrine requested clarification regarding the second to the
last paragraph of this letter which addresses traffic lanes in the area.
Mr. Helms stated that he believed this paragraph was a misconception, in
that if this development takes place, the required dedication for street
improvenents would remove the bottleneck that now exists at the inter-
section of Carlyn and Hamilton Avenues.
Mr. Erwin Klockeman, 467 Carlyn Ave., spoke against the project stating
that the plans have not changed that much, the proposed wall is worse, the
driveway is extremely close to the driveway on the commercial development
to the west, enforcement problems with the enclosed garages, and he is
against a two-story structure.
bars. Virginia Beckett, 441 N. Carlyn Ave., spoke against the project noting
the petition presented at the last meeting, and the_a"xaffic_hazards to .the
school children crossing at this location.
-4-
Mr. Alvin Beckett, 1330 E1 Solyo Ave., spoke against the project. He
provided the Commissioners with a written statement, which he reviewed
at the podium (attached hereto).
Mr. Dewey Reed, Trustee for Campbell Union School District, distributed
a copy of a letter written to City Manager Kevin Duggan from Marcia
Plumleigh, Superintendent, regarding signalization of Hamilton and
Llewellyn Avenues (attached hereto). Mr. Reed noted that the School
District is not taking a stand for or against this project. The District
is requesting that further study be done regarding .the location of the
proposed signal. It is the opinion of the District that the signal would
be better placed at Carlyn and Hamilton Avenues. Additionally, Mr. Reed
noted that the School District did not receive notification of this hear-
ing.
Mr. Helms explained that the letter refers to a meeting recently held
in conjunction with a signal recently approved as part of the Southbay
office project on Llewellyn Ave. Mr. Helms continued that it had been
his understanding that the issue had been resolved.
Mr. Larry Largent, 20351 Glasgow Dr., Saratoga, briefly reviewed the
history of the project, noting that originally it had been for the parcel
on the corner of Carlyn and Hamilton only. however, after further dis-
cussion, he was able to negotiate to combine his lot with the lot inunediately
adjacent to the west. Plans are now being presented for the development of
both these lots, and the plans include the dedication necessary to complete
Hamilton Avenue's widening.
Mr. Largent then read a certified letter from Shirley and Gary Papa, 121
Carlyn Ave., regarding the petition they had signed opposing this project
(attached hereto).
Ms. Auger noted that each page of the petition contained the contents of
the petition so that it could not be misinterpreted.
Mr. Klockeman noted that he did not agree with the context of the letter
from the Papa's.
Mr. Beckett stated that he felt to approve any project under these circum-
stances was a serious indictment.
Mr. Bykowski, 310 W. Hamilton Ave., spoke in favor of this project, and
noted the dangerous conditions which exist on his parcel as a residential
use.
Mr. Roaten Hinson, A.I.A., spoke at length describing the design of the
project and the attention that was paid to protecting the privacy of the
residential neighbors.
Ms. Auger indicated that the 8' wall is not a "favor" from the developer,
but is something that~is usually required between commercial and residential
uses. Additionally, she noted she would like to know the size of the land-
scaping materials at planting and at maturity.
-5-
Mr. Bud Johnson (builder),.110 Gilman Ave., stated that anyone can go
into the neighborhood to see that it is not impacted by off-site park-
ing. He noted that at some point the property needed for the completion
of Hamilton Avenue will have to be obtained--either by dedication or
purchase. If the Carlyn Avenue parcel is not combined with the Hamilton
Avenue parcel, the Carlyn Avenue parcel will be too narrow to be useful
and will have to be turned into a park which will have to be maintained
by the City. Mr. Johnson continued that a professional office is not
at all like a commercial building, ih_that the office will be in use for
limited hours and not on weekends thereby creating a more desirable neigh-
bor.
Mr. Klockeman indicated that parking is already a problem, and noted the
beauty shop use across the street.
M/S: Fairbanks, Howard - That the public hearing on PD 84-04/ZC 84-04 be
closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0).
N~/S: Christ, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission adopt RESOLUTION
NOS. 2292 ~ 2293 recommending denial of PD 84-04/
ZC 84- 04 .
Discussion of Motion
Chairman Dickson stated he was in favor of the motion because he felt
that the necessary transition from commercial to residential was not
taking place in the right way. He continued that abetter design might
', be a two-story to one-story transition. Additionally, Chairman Dickson
__' felt that the compact parking ratio was too great; the designated park-
. ing and the covered parking bothered him; and the shadow-line of the
structure would make the adjacent property's swimming pool unusable.
He concluded that he finds nothing unusual about this site to allow
for a two-story next to a residential neighborhood, and he felt that
the application did not address concerns expressed by the neighborhood.
story structure. He asked the City Attorney about the City's
legal obligation if this project is denied on the fact that i
story, and later there is an accident at this location.
Commissioner Perrine stated that he would like to see the lanes completed
along Hamilton Avenue, and that commercial and office uses were consistent
with the rest of Hamilton Avenue. He noted that private property changes
all the time, and. the neighbors are left to consider the changes after the
fact. Commissioner Perrine continued that he has gotten mixed messages
regarding this project--parking is said to be a problem, when the ratios
shown are quite adequate; privacy was complained about, and when the
Architect addresses this, we complain about the plainness of the design.
He concluded that he would be speaking against the motion.
Commissioner Kasolas stated that he felt there was no price to large to
pay for safety. He felt that the traffic situation is one that the
community is faced with in that you cannot tell people that they can't
drive on the street. Commissioner Kasolas continued that the only basic
objection he has heard during this hearing was the objection to a two-
t is a two-
moral and
-6-
Nor. Dempster stated that the Commission is only a recommending body. He
continued that it is his feeling that if there is a building proposed
which the Commission does not feel is compatible with the area, the
Commission can make this recommendation to the Council. Mr. Dempster
noted that he would rather not get into the legal aspects of safety
at this time; however, most certainly, when there is a problem--it is
important that action be taken to correct the problem when there is an
opportunity. All these factors must be taken into consideration when
a recommendation is made to the Council.
Commissioner Howard stated that he could not go along with the motion for
denial. fie felt that there were some problems with the project, but not
enough to recommend denial. He noted that he did not like to see garages
in a commercial development, and that he had concerns about the Carlyn
Avenue parking areas; however, he also felt that the Architect and the
developer have addressed the privacy concern with the design of the
project.
Commissioner Christ stated that he is recommending denial, not because
the structure is two-story, but because the project has on-site parking
problems~~,the design of the building should fit in better with the
residential neighborhood. Commissioner Christ continued that he felt
the problems could be solved, and he felt it was unfortunate that the
developer is requesting a decision at this point, rather than working
further to resolve these concerns.
Comnussioner Toshach stated that he would be supporting the motion on
the basis of transition into a residential. area. He felt that the
project, as presented, would have a damaging impact on the character
of the neighborhood.
Vote on Motion for Denial
AYES: Commissioners: Christ, Toshach, Fairbanks, Dickson
NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Howard
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
Commissioner Fairbanks asked Staff to check into the noticing procedures
to ensure that the School District receives notices which affect them.
Mr. Kee indicated that normally the District would be sent notices; however,
he would look into the matter.
~ ~ ~
The Commission recessed at 9:05 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:15 a.m.
* ~ ~
UP 84-14 Public hearing to consider the application of
Snell, S. Mr. Steve Snell (on behalf of KBAY/KEEN Radio
Stations) for a Use Permit and approval of plans
to locate a dish antenna in a parking area on
property known as 399 N. Third St. in a C-1-S
(Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District.
- 7-
_ Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The applicant would like to install land-
; Soaping around the antenna for visual screening; and, the landscaping plan
- is to come back to the Planning Director for approval within 30 days of
approval. The Committee is recommending approval.
Commissioner Fairbanks noted that she felt this is a good example of how
something like this can be handled and can be made to work under the
Ordinance .
Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the
audience to speak for or against this item.
M/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the public hearing on UP 84-14 be closed.
Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0).
M/S: Froward, Fairbanks - That the Planning Commission adopt RESOLUTION
N0. 2294 approving UP 84-14, subject to con-
ditions as .indicated in the Staff Comment
Sheet. Motion carried by the. following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Christ, Howard, Toshach,
Fairbanks, Dickson
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
*~*
bI<SCELLANEOUS
SA 84-49 Sign application of Mr. Jay Vassigh, on behalf
Vassigh, J. of Oyster Loaf Restaurant, for new signage on
property known as 100 W. Hamilton Ave, in a
C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District.
blr. Kee reported that the applicant has requested a continuance.
M/S: Fairbanks, Perrine - That SA 84-49 be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of October 23, 1984.
Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0).
~~~
SA 84-45 Application of Mr. Warren Jacobsen for a sign
MM 84-23 permit and a modification to plans to allow the
Jacobsen, W. placement of two cargo storage containers and an
engine hoist on property known as 951 Camden
Ave. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District.
Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was considered by .the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval of
_ two cargo storage containers, on a temporary basis, for one year; and,
approval of the engine hoist to remain indefinitely--both subject to
conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Report.
-8-
Commissioner Perrine continued that the Committee is reco~nending the
following on the proposed signing: (1) denial of the roof sign;
(2) approval of sign on the east end of the building; (3) approval
of sign on the west end of the building; (4) removal of sign from
fence; (5) approval of sign on north side of building. Commissioner
Perrine noted .that these recommmendations. are because of the difficult
location of the property.
Commissioner Christ added that the Committee is not recommending a
sign for the fence in that the fence is on public right-of-way, and
the Committee felt this an inappropriate place for a sign; however,
they are suggesting that this sign be moved to that side of the
building.
NIr. Stafford noted that Staff supports these recommendations, noting
that the property is difficult to identify because of the traffic
patterns in the area.
Regarding the engine hoist, it was noted that it is not seen from the
freeway. The hoist is considered under the "outdoor Storage" section
of the Code, and must be approved by the Commission.
N~/S: Fairbanks, Howard - That the Planning Commission approve I~Il~I 84-23
allowing two cargo storage containers for a
period of one year, and allowing the place-
ment of an engine hoist for an indefinite
period of time. That the Planning Commission
approve SA 84-45 allowing signing for. 951
Camden Ave. as follows: (1) Sign on the
east end of the building; (2) Sign on the
west end of the building; (3) Sign on the
north end of the building. Approvals are
subject to conditions as indicated in the
Staff Comment Sheet. A4otion carried unani-
mously (~-o-o).
*~~
OTHIIt I T'EM~S BROUGHT UP BY COP~Aff SS ION
Commissioner Perrine requested that Public Works look into trimming the
bushes along the fence at 951 Camden Avenue.
Commissioner Kasolas requested that Staff look into a car repair business
in a residential neighborhood on the corner of Crockett and Westmont Avenues.
Commissioner Kasolas requested that Staff look into the iron gates that have
been placed across the parking lot for the Franciscan Apartments on Almarida
Dr.
Annual Planning Commission meeting - It was the consensus of the Commission
that the Annual meeting be held at Commissioner Kasolas' home on December 9
at 4:00 p.m•.!
~ x ~
-9-
ADJOURNI~NT
~'~/S: Howard, Christ - That the Planning Commission meeting be adjourned.
_ The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
APPROVED: J. DuWayne Dickson
Chairman
ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee
ecretary
RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis
cretary
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
APPLICATION OF: Spoons Restaurant P. C. t4tg.: 10/9/84
ADDRESS: 1555 S. Bascom Ave.
FILE NO.: MM 84-22
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
1. Door leaving the bar area shall be a minimum of 3'0".
2. The floor or landing shall not be more than one inch lower than threshold
of the doorway in the patio area.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
3. Exit gate from patio shall be equipped with panic hardware.
4. Exit sign shall be provided for gate.
5. .Provide a lighted walkway from patio gate to sidewalk.
COND i T IONS OF APPROVAL ; $ 84-20
- APPL 1 CAT I ON of : Rooker, Raymond
8 1 TE ADDRE88 : 1625 W. Campbell Ave. p C KTG : 10/9/84
n/a Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Plannin
Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor, wit in
30 days of the Planning Commission approval.
n/a Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by_~the Site &
Architectural Review Committee and/or the Planning Commissio' w th-
in 30 days of Planning Comlm ssion approval.
1 Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in
red on plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in
accordance with the approved plans.
n/a. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and
location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the
Site b Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission
_ prior to app icat~on or a ui ing permit.
2 Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and
location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the
Planning Director prior to application for a building permit.
- n a Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to
be submitted for approval of the Planning Director prior to applica-
tion for building permit.
3 Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the
amount of $ 1 00 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping
of parking areas wit in 3 months of completion of construction; or
(2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing and strip-
ing of parking areas prior to application fora building permit.
4 Applicant to submit a plan, prior to installation of PG&E utility
(transformer) boxes, indicating the location of the boxes and
screening(if boxes are aboveground) for approval of the Planning
Director.
n a Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney,
limiting the use of the property to: square feet of
office use, square feet of speculative industrial
use, and square feet of warehouse use, prior to
issuance o a ui ing permit.
5 A11 mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be
screened as approved by the Planning Director.
6 Building occupancy will. not be allowed until public improvements
- are installed.
*n/a: not applicable to this application.
PAGE 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-20
APPLICATION OF: Rooker, R.
SITE ADDRESS• 1625 W. Campbell Ave.
The applicant is notified as .part of this application that he/she is required
to meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinance of the City of
Campbell and Laws of the State of California.
A All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with
Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces
to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards.
n/a Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section
20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code.
n/a 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 tele-
vision cables, etc.
B 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 the Building Depart-
ment (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code).
C Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that
any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage,
wet garbage dad 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 apart-
ment units, to all commercial., business, industrial, manufacturing,
and construction establishments.
D Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the
development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire De-
partment. 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.
E Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City re-
quirements for the handicapped.
n/a Noise levels for the interior of residential units .shall comply
with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated
in the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan.
n/a Applicant is hereby ,notified that he will be
required to pay
• Park. Dedication In-Lieu Fee which will be assessed at the time
the subdivision map is submitted.
STANAARD FIRE AAZARD ABATEMENT COMMENT: 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. A11 existing structures shall
be kept secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolish-
ed or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 6 11.414, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code.
PAGE 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-20
APPLICATION OF: Rooker, R.
SITE ADDRESS• 1625 W. Campbell Ave.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
F. Applicant will have to conform to Title 24, State of California
Handicap Regulations.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
G. Provide 20' wide fire lane to the rear of the complex. Signs shall
be posted prohibiting parking.
H. Provide second exit from the large conference room on the first
floor.
The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or
Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not
herein specified.
ITEM N0. 3
ROSEMARY SCHOOL
401 W. Hamilton Aue. (408) 378-2261 Campbell. California 95008
. .. Ed McCauley. Principal
CAMPBELL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
~ij ~ D ~ ~ October 1, 1984
O
acr s 1984
Planning Commission
City of Campbell CITY OF CAMPBELL
Campbell , CA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
On Thursday, September 27 Sue Auger, who resides at 453 N.
Carlyn Street, came into my office with a tape .recording of the
Planning Commission meeting of September 11,.1984. The record-
ing dealt specifically with the portion of the meeting which
dealt with- an application for a zone change for the property
at 481 Carlyn and 310 Hamilton Avenue.
The recorded message conveyed the suggestion that the
principal at Rosemary School endorsed this proposed zone change
because it calls for the installation of a sidewalk along the
north edge of the property involved in the rezoning application.
Actually my only conversation with Mr. Largent, the person
who has applied for the zone change, occurred in the parking
lot at Rosemary School and was extremely brief. My statement
to him was that as principal of Rosemary School it is not my
position to endorse or refuse to endorse such a proposal, that
this is the prerogative of the Governing Board of the District.
As principal of Rosemary School, my concern with this pro-
posal is based entirely on the effect it would have on students
who live south of Hamilton Avenue and must walk across this
street to get to school.
There is a pedestrian crosswalk on Hamilton extending
directly northward from the sidewalk on the east side of Carlyn.
Students are escorted across Hamilton Avenue in this pedestrian
crosswalk by two crossing guards employed by the City of Campbell.
If this zoning change is approved, three lanes of eastbound
traffic will merge into two lanes just west of the pedestrian
crosswalk. This means that drivers in the south lane must be
concerned with the problems of merging as well as watching for
pedestrians in the crosswalk.
The safety of the students who .must cross Hamilton is a
constant concern of mine. I respectfully request that this
proposed zoning change be carefully studied in terms of the
impact it will have on student safety.
Sincerely,
Ed McCauley
nb
9 October 1984
TO: Campbell Planning Commission
FROM: Alvin C. Beckett
RE: ZC 84-04
PD 84-04
L. I,a rg a nt
Before any decision is made on this application, I would like to call attention
to the following matters of concern:
1) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. To permit Largent to construct a 2-story
building at this location will result in a blockage of air .from the north and to the
west for those residents:who will be cut. off:fio:rn this free .flow of air.. Further-
more, visibility will be impeded by this hugh structure that is to be built ll'
from adjacent .residential property lines.
2) AESTHETICS. Although the building may be pleasing to the eyes of some of
those who traverse Hamilton Avenue, and maybe those who see this corner of
_ Carlyn Avenue, it certainly will appear differently for those who Live on Carlyn
Avenue. If permitted, this 2-story structure will be viewed from its undressed
rear.
3) PE TI TIOI~T AGAINST. The petition signed by those in opposition to this 2-story
structure, who are residents of the surrounding residential area--and they con-
stitute aformidable number on record now with the Commission--is a matter of
record (you were given this in a previous meeting). .The plans are not in keeping
with the surrounding commercial property on Hamilton Avenue (primarily 1-story
buildings), and certainly have nothing in common with this residential area.
4) PARKING. The planned parking facilities for this property are marginal, at
best. Commitment of a portion for those who staff the offices, limited use in-
tended for compact-cars (this assumes a :balance- among users and visitors),
spaces for handicapped (and the size of each of these takes more than regular
spaces), forebodes an overflow into surrounding street parking areas. Do you
wish residential neighbors to inherit this problem too? As further evidence of
future difficulties, note that the commercial properties now in operation to the
west will also lose their Hamilton Avenue parking spots for customers, adding
to the problem. A solution for this must be found before it happens.
5) LANDSCAPING. Once the commitment for Hamilton Avenue widening is
initiated, the space remaining for driveway, building, parking...AND TREES,
plus a di~•iding wall, stretches the imagination. Has the Commission actually
seen a workable p]an for all of this? Anything less will constitute an intrusion
against the residential neighbor' s property on Carlyn avenue.
~.
CAMP6ELL
zss titord~ third Saeec
CampbeM.Giiforrw ~ooe l~- ~-cos
M ~~ ~K~~' ~~~~
October 8, 19134
Kevin Luygan
City Manager
City of Campbel l
7U N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95U~ri
Uear Mr. Uuggan:
Subject: Student Safety - 3osemary School
It teas been brought to our attention that anoffice complex is
planned on iamilton and L1ewllyn Avenues, in close proximity to
Rosemar}' Scheal.
Un Wednesday, uctober 3, Business Manager Mike Beever and I met
with City Representatives Art Kee, 3oe Elliott, and Bill Helms to
discuss the District's concern for the safety of students crossing
Hamilton Avenue to attend Rosemary School.
Duriny the discussion, we were informed that the proposed
development will reyuire tt~e widening of Hamilton Avenue from two
lanes to three lanes in front of the school. t~urther, it was
mentioned that a traffic light will be installed on the corner of
hamilton and Llewllyn Avenues.
It is the District's preference to have a traffic liyht installed
on the comer of Hamilton and Carlin Avenues, directly across from
kosemary School, thereby ensuring the safe crossing of students.
We understand, however, that residents .along Carlin are opposed to
this iocation of a traffic light as it ~rould have the potential
for increasing neighborhood traffic.
- continued
~_' C
IjNION SCHOOL DiSTR1CT
GOVERNfNG BOARD
oN-ayne Reed lade Wade David v~lker~au Qelphine Tuoci Virginia Vaughn
Letter to Campbell City Manager
regarding Student Safety -2
Per our meeting on Wednesday, it was agreed to by representatives
of the City and the School District that:
1. the City will continue to provide the two crossing guards
to cross children at Hamilton and Carlin Avenues and,
2. the flashing warning light will continue to be
used to control traffic at the crossing.
the District appreciates the support of the City of Campbell to
ensure the safety of our students.
Sincerely , ,,,
,p~ ~ ,~
~`
Marcia Plumleigh
Superintendent
cc: Governing Board
City Council Members
~, City Staff Members Kee. Elliott, Helm
Business Manager Michael Beever
' Rosemary Principal Ed McCauley
Oct. 5, 1984
Gaty and Shirley Papa
121 Carlyn Ave
Ca~bell, Calif. 95008
City of Campbell
Plaruling Catmission
7.b Whan It May Ocnoenz:
In September of this year I signed a petition to reject an office building
on the wrner of Carlyn and Hamilton Ave in Cat bell. I signed this petition
because I am apposed to a 3 or 4 story building in a residential area. It has
since Dare to my attention that this office building is only going to be 2
stories high and will result in the widening of Hami.ltai Ave. There is now a
bottleneck in that area and I would love tro see that corrected. When I signed
this petition it was only because Air. Klockemann, the gentleman circulating it,
did not reveal all the facts correctly. My wife stated to Mr. Klockemann that she
would not wish to sign his petition because she had already signed a petition in
fawr of the project which was distributed by Frank Doetsch. Mr. Kloclanzu~n infornrecl
my wife that the petition she had signed previously had nothing to dD with this
project and pertained only to the sewer system. Mr. Klockenann also indicated
a traffic stopage on Hamilton Ave if oa~stnyction was allowed on this project
site. I feel that Mr. Klockanann misrepresented this petition and project, not
only to ml' wife and I but also to the neighbors. My understanding is that this
project is proposed as a 2 story office building instead of a possible 3 or 4
stories. Believe me, I feel that a nice new office building will enhance the area.
I hereby request that my wife's name and also my name be removed from the
petition to reject and our names be placed in fawr of approval. I also request
a Dopy of this letter be submitted to the City Council. I had every intention of
being at the meeting of Oct. 9th but a conflict with m1' job prohibited this. If
any further discussion is required oaz this matter I may be reached at 370-6672.
Sincerely yours,
Shirley P
GazY Papa i /
~U
GENERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
r~o. 201
State of~+'~"
~:Ga/M ss.
County o
~~,~ , OFFICIAL SEAL
ALLEN N NENCESCUE
c '- • " NOTARY PUBLIC -CALIFORNIA
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
MY comm. expires MAY 7, 1988
On this the ~ day of V ~~~E~ 19.x, before me,
the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared
R LE P/~ ~ ~~' ' ,
^ personally known to me
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
to the person(s) whose name(s) 146 subscribed to the
within instrument, and acknowledged that ~tr__._-executed it.
WITNESS my hand and f ial seai.~
Notary's Signature
7110172 WITIOWU 1'K7~I1ni wstswuu min •racnz wmur~ ww. • rv. owe .am - ..w.a..w. ...o. .... .~...
CONDITI0~1S OF APPROVAL: M~4 84-23/NM 84-45
SITE ADDRESS: 9b1 Camden Ave.
APPLICANT: Jacobsen, W. (Thompson's Automotive)
PLANNING QOA~NIISSION MTG.: 10/9/84
Cargo storage containers and engine hoist
1. The following conditions to be satisfied within 30 days of date of approval:
A. Containers to be painted to match the building.
B. Applicant to provide a letter of agreement, satisfactory to the City
Attorney, stating that the containers will be removed from the property
within one year from the date of approval, unless the Cmmiissian grants
an extension.
C. Applicant to secure any necessary permits from the Building Dept. '-
D. Applicant to install wood slats in fence along the Camden Ave. frontage
to screen this use.
E. Applicant to stripe parking area.
F. Applicant to cease use of adjacent property to the south. No parking
or storage to be allaaed until such time as application is approved by
the Planning Commission and the project completed.
Sim
1. The following conditions to be satisfied within 30 days of date of approval:
A. Fence at the corner of Dell and Camden Avenues to be relocated to
property line.
B. All signs not approved by the 'Planning Co~mnission to be removed.
~**~*s~