Loading...
PC Min 07/10/1984PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES JULY 10, 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, Campos, Fairbanks, Dickson; Principal Planner Philip J. Stafford, Planner TI Marty Woodworth, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney J. Robert Demp- ster, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Commissioner Howard; Planning Director Arthur A. Kee . APPROVAL OF A'fINiTI'ES June 26, 1984 M/S: Perrine, Fairbanks - That the minutes of the Planning Corrunission meeting of June 26, 1984 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. ~~* COMUUNICATIONS Mr. Stafford reported that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. Chairman Dickson asked that a letter of resignation from Commissioner Campos be entered. into the record; and, he expressed his appreciation for Commissioner Campos' service to the community. Chairman Dickson introduced Mr. Ronald W. Christ a_s the new Planning Commissioner. Commissioner Christ is filling the unexpired term of Jane Meyer who resigned in May. Chairman Dickson announced the recent marriage of Mr. Woodworth, and introduced his wife, Carla. ,~ ,~ ,~ ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 84-05 Continued application of Mr. Jim Dumas, on behalf of Dumas, J. Vanderson Construction, Inc., for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of an office building on property known as 476 to 486 E. Campbell Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Stafford reported that Staff is recommending a continuance of this item, noting that communications with the applicant indicates he intends to have plans submitted in time for the next agenda. -2- M/S: Fairbanks, Christ - That S 84-05 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. -. ~*x MM 84-14 Continued application of Mr. Albert Evers, Jr., for Evers, A. a modification to approved plans to allow the estab- lishment of a construction storage yard on property known as = 454 McGlincey Lane in an R-2-S (Multi- ple Family Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval, subject to attached conditions, with the understanding that the fencing and landscaping plans will be coming back to the Committee for review. M/S: Campos, Perrine - That the Planning Commission approve NNI 84-14, sub- ject to conditions as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried unanimously.- - **~ S 84-14 Continued application of Mr. Behrooz Nikakhtar for Nikakhtar, B. approval of plans and elevations to allow the con- struction of a 5-unit apartment building on pro- perty known as 1430 W. Latimer .Ave. in an R-2-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Commmittee is recommending a continuance in order that the applicant might submit revised plans addressing concerns expressed in the Staff Comment Sheet. Commissioner Fairbanks requested information regarding the densities of surrounding developments for the next meeting. M/S: Fairbanks, Perrine - That S 84-14 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1984. Motion carried unani- mously. *~ S 84-15 Continued application of Mr. Paul McAllister for McAllister, P. approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a two-story office building on properties known as 1690 $ 1700 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 revised plans address previously ex- pressed concerns to the satisfaction of Staff and the Committee. Although the parking ratio is very close to code, approval is bring recommended be- cause the Committee has insisted on the internalization of the stairs for the building. -3- Mr. and Mrs. William B, Sirt~nons, 1680 S. Winchester Blvd., requested that a 6' masonry wall be constructed between their residence and the proposed project. M/S: Perrine, Kasolas - That S 84-15 be approved, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried unanimously. ~~~ S 84-12 Continued application of Ms. Kathryn Hetzer, on Public Storage b~alf of Public Storage Inc., for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a mini-storage facility on property known as 175 Curtner Avenue and 905. $ 951 McGlincey Lane in an M-2-S (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The proposal includes a masonry wall along the Highway 17 frontage, as well as a reduction in the number of doors visi- ble to Highway 17. Commissioner Fairbanks asked about the number of employees and the number of storage units. Commissioner Kasolas asked about the~~.ingress/egress, and the impact of the entrance on Curtner Avenue in connection with development on the drive-in site. Mr. Helms indicated that this type of storage use has minimal traffic. There will be additional widening of Curtner to accommodate turning movements, and the applicant has been asked to provide additional right=of-way to put in a protected left-turn lane. Regarding the secondary access on McGlincey Lane, it is the understanding of the Public Works Department that this is to be afire lane only. Mr. Don Hoffinan, representing Public Storage~Inc., stated that this use has very light traffic and is a good use for this site, in that the limited access and visibility problems allow the mini-storage use to work where other uses would not be accommodated. He noted that they will be providing the right-of-way to construct a protected left-turn lane, ~.d that the McGlincey Lane ~;ccess:is for emergency use only. Additionally, the resident manager will be, typically, a couple living in the on-site apartment of approxi- mately 640 sq.ft. Two other employees will be on-site part-time (a relief mana- ger, and an occasional maintenance person). There are approximately 700 stor- age compartments ranging in size from 5x7 to 10x30. In response to a question regarding the orange colors, Mr. Hoffman indicated that the colors are not a company color or logo. Originally, a bright orange was proposed, however, the Site Committee worked to change the contrast color to a burnt orange. There will be very little exposure of the doors (burnt orange color) to the freeway, in that there are approximately 50 doors re- maining to be seen, out of 700 spaces. Commissioner Fairbanks noted that the tops of the doors will be seen, and that she is a little unhappy with the orange color. She questioned the -4- statement that the "applicant will attempt to landscape the buffer along the freeway on-ramp." Mr. Hoffman noted that they are attempting to get approval from the State to landscape this area. Commissioner Kasolas asked for information regarding the number and sizes of the storage spaces, as well as provision for outside storage. Mr. Hoffman responded that he did not have the exact numbers of the various sized stalls; however, there would be approximately 30-40 of the 10x30 units. The exterior doors will be on the larger units (10x20, 10x25, and 10x30). The larger units are typically leased by commercial users. This project has less than 20$ of these large units, whereas most public storage facilities have approximately 40~ of the large units. There will be no outside storage. Commissioner Kasolas noted his concern that there might not be enough parking considering the number of large units and the frequency of visits by the commercial users. Additionally, he expressed concern about the ingress/ egress on Curtner Avenue. Commissioner Christ expressed his concern about the Curtner Avenue access and the number of large units being used by commercial leases, as well as the size of the plant materials at the entrance to the project. Mr. Hoffman responded that traffic studies for mini-warehousing uses have been extensively studied by Cal-Trans, and Public Storage has used these figures in calculating the traffic generated by this facility. He coaitinued that people are not asked, when leasing a unit, whether it is for a commercial or residential use. As the development matures, the uses stablize and the traffic decreases. The most traffic is generated in the start-up months. M/S: Perrine, Campos - That S 84-12 be approved, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet ; and, with the inclusion of a condition specifying no outside storage; and, with a condition for review of parking within one year of opening of the facility. I~btion carried unanimously. ~~* SA 84-40 Sign application - Public Storage - 175 Curtner Ave. Public Storage and 905 ~ 951 McGlincey Ln. Mr. Stafford reported that the applicant has submitted a letter withdrawing this sign application due. to the problems involved in getting a freeway- oriented sign approved. M/S: Fairbanks, Perrine - That SA 84-40 be removed from the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. ~~~ -5- MM 83-16 Application of Mr. Frank Ashton for an extension Bread of Life of a previous approval for a cargo storage con- . tainer and afenced-in storage area on property known as 471 E. Campbell Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/ Commercial and/or InchastrtaT) Zoning District. Mr. Woodworth reviewed this request, noting that the applicant is requesting an additional 6 months to remove the container. The applicant is intending to move his business by the end of November 1984, and the container and fenced-in area will be removed at that time. M/S: Fairbanks, Perrine - That MM 83-16 be approved, allowing an extension of the use of a cargo storage container until December 13, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. s~ s~ ~ PUBLIC HEARING ZC 84-O1 Continued public hearing to consider the application Kobza, D. of Mr. Deis Kobza, ~,on behalf of Regency Monarch-- ----- -- Developanent Corp., for approval of a zone change from PD (Planned Development) to C-PD (Condominium- Planned Development); and approval of plans, eleva- tions and development schedule to allow the construction of an office building on property known as 851 E. Hamil- ton Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/ Commercial and/or Industrial) 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 Staff might have adequate time to evaluate the revised traffic report. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against. M/S: Campos, Fairbanks -That ZC 84-01 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. ~~* PD 84-01 Continued public hearing to consider the application DeMoss, F. of Mr. Frank DeNbss, on behalf of Arista Properties, for a Plaxmed Development Permit and approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the con- str~tion of an office building on property known as 116 E. C bell Avenue in a PD (Plarmed Development/ Comnercia~l Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Although there was no representative pre- sent for the applicant, the Committee is recoacnnending a continuance in order that revised plans might be submitted. Plans submitted for this meeting did not address adequate sight visibility from the proposed driveway. -6- Mr. Stafford noted that revised plans were received, however, in reviewing these plans the Architectural Advisor expressed a concern regarding the elevation design. Staff is recommending a continuance also. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Fairbanks, Perrine - That PD 84-01 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1984, l~btion carried unanimously. *~~ The Commission recessed at 8:30 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m. *~~ EIR 84-02 Public hearing to consider the Draft EIR for a proposed Lincoln Property Co. office project on property known as 2105 S. Bascom Ave. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) and R-3-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Stafford reviewed this docwnent, reporting that the applicant is .proposing to redevelop the site of the Baker Trailer Sales lot with a 4-story office building with a total of 140,000 sq.ft. The Draft EIR, which is before the Commission at this time, satisfies the Staff's requirement as indicated to the consultant in the original scope of work. Additionally, mitigating measures recommended by the consultant, as well as by Staff, have been in- cluded as Conditions of Approval for this project under the site application. Staff is recommending that the Coarnnission consider the Draft EIR and make any changes as deemed necessary; and, that the Commission certify the Draft EIR as complete, and that the mitigating measures cantained therein be used in re- viewing the development plans for the proposed project. Commissioner Fairbanks indicated she would prefer additional time to review this document. Commissioner Campos asked if, in cases where impacts differed between the opinions of San Jose and Campbell, Staff considered the recommendation for Campbell--specifically on Pg. 2-1 Bascom Ave. Mr. John Wilson, Traffic Consultant, Wilson-Porter Engineering, spoke at length reviewing the traffic sections of the EIR and answered questions from the Ca~-mission. Mr. Helms explained that while the definition for "level of service" is the same for San Jose and Campbell, the method for calculating the impact is different. He .noted that the impacts were calculated with and without the Prometheus Development, since the report was prepared prior to the election. Chairman Dickson noted that the mitigating measures included in this docu- ment seeped different from previous EIR's; namely Pg. 3-5 which indicates that the City of Campbell should redesignate additional lands for high density residential uses to compensate for the lost of the residentially Zoned portion of this project. -7- Mr. Stafford agreed that this mitigation measure was unusual. What the consultant is saying that if the City wishes to re-coup the housing that might have been possible on the residentially zoned portion of this pro- ject, then the City should look at the possibility of redesignating other lands as high density. Cor~nissioner Fairbanks asked if this project had access onto Michael Drive, and if so, what impact was foreseen; and, if the portion of this property that is currently zoned for multiple family were to be developed as housing, what impact would it have on Michael Drive. Mr. Helms noted that since this is a commercial development, it was Staff's recommendation that there be no access onto Michael Drive; however, if this parcel were developed with housing, it would seem advantageous to have access to Michael Drive. Mrs. Garnetta Annable, 951 Dry Creek Rd., coirmented on the EIR noting that it did not address conditions on .Apricot Avenue. Mitigating measures would force people to use Apricot to get north on Bascom Ave. Apricot Ave. should be looked at for its size and amount of traffic it can handle. Also, the Winchester Drive-In developanent will bring traffic down tkiion Avenue, which will add to the congestion. Mrs. Armable continued that the EIR did not address air quality, and it is her understanding that the emissions level is already above State and City standards. San Jose told her that this project does not take into account the project on Bascom at Bohnett School wren a 260-unit apartment complex is constructed (with a projected 1560 trips per day). She asked that the EIR be continued. Mrs. Annable continued that, as the President of the Cambrian Valley Home- owner's Assn., the Association had requested (pertaining to the development at Bohnett School) that the garbage containers be relocated, a masonry wall be constructed, the size of the project be reduced, and that a light at Bascom and Dry Creek be omitted because of the problem with cross-traffic at this location. San Jose agreed to all these requests except for the reduction in the size of the project in that it will be low-income housing and one of the last projects of this type to be funded. in the area. Mr. Robert Buechel, 989 Dry Creek Rd., spoke regarding the storm drainage system in the area. He asked that consideration be .given to the problems which would be caused by covering over the percolation lands. Mr. Helms explained the storm drainage system in this area, noting that this EIR indicates that drainage would be through the 54" line on Union Ave. In Campbell, most of the storm drains were desigped for the "IO- Year Storm". Because Mr. Buechel's property is in the City of San Jose's jurisdiction, Staff has suggested that he approach San Jose and have them get in touch with the City of Campbell to see if anything can be worked out pertaining to the drainage problem on his property. In response to a question from Commissioner Perrine, Mr. Helms indicated that there are no plans at this time to increase the size of the storm drain facility in the Union Avenue area. Regarding questions pertaining t4 traffic movements and Apricot Avenue, -- Mr. Helms reported that Staff is not suggesting that any movements be precluded at this time. It is Staff's intention to monitor the turning movements and if it appears to be a problem, the applicant would be -8- required to construct measures to restrict the turning movements. At this point, the effects of those possible measures are not known for Apricot Avenue; however, looking at trip distribution figures, there is no .indication that trips are assigned to Apricot Avenue so there would not appear to be any significant impact on this street from -this project. bor. Russell Levitt, Earthmetrics Inc., appeared to address concerns expressed about the EIR, noting that there are no plans for "right turns only" on Bascom Ave. Regarding the air quality, addressed on Pg. 8-1--it is not considered significant for this individual project; however, in conjunction with other projects, Pg. 7-1 indicates a cumn~lative impact on air quality. Regarding the Bohnett School site, the consultant did meet with the City of San Jose and obtain figures for traffic generation, which are included in the report. Mr. Wilson noted that the Bohnett School site project is not called out specifically in the .EIR; however, San Jose provided the consultant with a list of alI the projects in the area. This list is constantly up-dated as projects are approved. Mrs. Annable stated that already during peak traffic hours, one cannot make a left turn off Dry Creek onto Bascom. She felt that Apricot Avenue would be used, and that the developer might want to consider using Michael Drive for safety's sake. Commissioner Campos expressed his concern that the 260-unit apartment complex at Bohnett School might not have been included in the traffic figures. Commissioner Kasolas asked if there was any way of estimating what per- centage of the amount of traffic generated was from within the City of Campbell or its Sphere of Influence and the nunnber of trips that termi- nated within the City of Campbell with regard to the Hamilton/Bascom intersection, or Bascom Ave. itself within the immediate area. Or, is there any estimation of the traffic generated from San Jose or Los Gatos. What would the significance of this project be in the total picture. Mr. Wilson responded that it would be very difficult to give a specific number of trough trips, or inter-city trips; however, ~ very large per- centage of these trips are through-trips.. In terms of total number of vehicles on Bascom daily, you would probably not notice any increase due to this project--although one would probably notice it close to the site. Commissioner Kasolas noted that a summation would indicate that the City of Campbell has no say over what traffic comes and goes or uses the streets within it's jurisdiction. Mr. Levitt noted that what the City of Campbell is experiencing is not __.__ tncommon for a jurisdiction in the center of a major metropolitan area and the mitigating measures have to be regional--freeway systems. -9- Mr. Burch Boone, applicant, stated that the property is under a contract which expires at the end of July. He continued that the mitigating mea- sures indicated in the EIR should mitigate the impact of this project. He asked that before the Commission consider a continuation theX might con- sider putting conditions on the project if necessary. Mr. Boon'felt that this would allow the developer to evaluate concerns that may be unsurmount- able or that can be addressed and overcome. Mrs. Annable noted that in her discussion with the City of San Jose's Redevelopment Department, she felt that. the City of San Jose considered that Campbell is .enjoying much of the purchasing power of the West San Jose area. She expressed her concern that traffic situations might cut off the West San Jose area by cutting off the shopping routes. Mr. Levitt stated that the consultants are aware that there are intersections that without significant measures would constitute considerable impact; how- ever, how many people in this area would go shopping during the peak commute hours. The peak commute hours is the time frame addressed in this report. Mr. Wayne Mitsunaga, 1518 Via Cancion, San Jose, felt the EIR was incomplete because of the possibility that the 260-unit apartment complex at Bohnett School was not included. Mr. John Figueroa, property owner of 52 Michael Drive, spoke regarding the traffic and parking on Michael Drive, noting that there is parking on both sides of Michael Drive; it is difficult to make a left turn onto Barbano Dr. from Campbell Ave. because of the alignment of the intersection; traffic is already heavy on Union Avenue; and if this project has access onto Michael Drive it will cause Michael Drive to become an extension of the parking lot. Mr. Wilson stated that, in regard to Bohnett School project, under the criteria used ("relative increase in traffic associated with this project"), this speci- fic project will not increase traffic volumes at an intersection to a degree that overcomes the criteria of the City of Campbell or the City of San Jose. In response to a concern expressed as to how cars will be able to go north on Bascom Ave. since this project is in the middle of the block, Mr. Helms noted that the EIR indicates that the consultants analysis shows that these movements can be done without additional traffic controls. However, Staff is recommending that if, at any time, this northbound movement becomes unacceptable then the developer must construct islands preventing .left-turn movements. M/S: Campos, Fairbanks - That the public hearing on EIR 84-02 be closed. Discussion Chairman Dickson stated that he would be in favor of a motion for continuance; that he would like to make sure the Bohnett School site has been included in the calculations; and, what affect this project would have on Apricot Avenue. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he would suggest that the Commission seriously look at this matter, and if appropriate,bring the matter to a vote this evening. --- The issue boils dorm to whether or not Campbell wants to allow property owners -10- to fully develop their property within the General Plan. It is not possible to turn the traffic on or off. It seems that people speaking on this project this evening from San Jose were unable to get the City of San Jose to lessen the intensity of the Bohnett School project. The only thing a can_tinuance would accomplish would be to terminate the project. Commissioner Kasolas continued that the trttffic issue is nothing that is going to be affected-- with or without this project. Traffic is a county problem and Campbell happens to be situated geographically where 600 of all traffic comes through this City, Vote on Motion Notion for closing public hearing carried with a vote of 5-1-1, with Chairman Dickson .voting 'ho". NI/S: Ka.solas, Perrine -That the Planning Coa~nnission certify the Draft EIR as complete, and that mitigating measures contained therein be used in reviewing the development plans for the proposed project. Discussion Commissioner Fairbanks noted her agreement with Chairman Dickson's comments regarding the EIR. Cm~anissioner Perrine spoke in favor of feel that information on the school or significantly relative to traffic that points out. the motion, stating that he did not Apricot Avenue would produce anything would alter what the EIR already Chairman Dickson stated that he would like these comments passed onto the Council. He disagreed with measures on Pg. 3-5 regarding the increase of densities to make up for potentially lost housing. Commissioner Kasolas suggested that the EIR might be certified with the suggestion that it be forwarded to Council. During the interim period,. information regarding Bohnett School and Apricot Avenue could be researched and presented to Council concurrently. Chairman Dickson stated that this was a positive approach. He expressed additiana.l concerns with the parking variance, and stated that he is not. in fawr of this variance. Pg. 3-27--the height and mass of the structure could allow a much higher and denser use than what they are asking for-- Chairn~an Dickson felt that there should be something indicated in the conditions that the applicant would have to come before the Commission to see if these uses are acceptable. Commissioner Fairbanks added that part of the motion is that. the mitigating measures contained therein be used in reviewing the development plans, and perhaps the Commission may wis o use tine word consider, rather than used. Commissioner Christ stated his concerns with traffic and the impact with the streets on the east side of Bascom Avenue, as well as Apricot Avenue. How- ever, he felt that the EIR presented enough information to be considered complete. -11- Vote on Motion Notion for certifying Draft EIR as complete carried with the following roll call Mote.: AYES: Commissioners: ICasolas, Perrine, Christ, Campos NOES: Commissioners: Dickson, Fairbanks ABSENT: Carrnnissioners: Howard ~~* UP 84-08 Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. S 84-11 Burch Boone, on behalf of Lincoln Property Co., Lincoln Property for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a 4-story office building an pro- perty lmown as 2105 S. Bascom Ave., in a C-2-S (General Commercial) and R-3-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. Comanissioner Perrine reported that this item was before the Site and Archi- tectural Review Committee. One concern addressed was the emergency access an Michael Drive. The plan indicates a concrete block pathway with grass which would allow the Fire Department access if necessary. The Architectural Advisor expressed a concern with the building facade detail. In general, the Committee liked what they saw, and is recommending approval subject to the detailed plans coming back to the Conunission within 30 days for final approval. NIr. Stafford further reviewed the project for the Commission, stating that Staff is recamnending approval, subject to attached conditions, and that the Plaaning Commission forward this application to the City Council for its review. N1r. Helms reviewed Conditions H-N, noting that there is an impact at the I-~amilton/Sa.lmar intersection and Staff is of the opinion that an atroropriate mitigation measure is the addition of one lane which would allow an exclusive thru-lan~~ .down Salma.ih. In response to a question from Commissioner Fairbanks regarding the historic significance of the existing structure on-site, N1r. Stafford indicated that the structure has been reviewed by the Historic Preservation Board who found no historic significance. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mrs. Annable, 951 Dry Creek Rd., stated that she would like to see an office building on this site; however, she has a problem with the parking variance. Additionally, she spoke in favor of a reduction in the size of the building, perhaps making it 3 stories; and, she expressed concerns regarding traffic circulation, noting that access to Michael Drive would improve circulation and keep traffic off Apricot Avenue. Nir. Burch Boone, applicant, presented an aerial photo and~~slides of the site. -12- Mr. Dan Ortiz, Architect, reviewed the project for the Commission, noting the project will be approximately 140,000 sq.ft. with 136,000 sc{.ft. in '-~ adjusted gross floor area; and, with 574 parking spaces provided, which will bring the parking ratio down to 1:237. Mr. Ortiz also reviewed the plans for the parking structure. D4r. Paul Lettieri, Landscape Architect, reviewed the landscape plans for the project, noting that there will be a Iarge amount of screening around the project to protect the residential area. The interior atrium will be provided with a tropical type of plantings; there will be several types of flowering trees; the concrete-block emergency access path with be covered with turf-cloth; the two large palm trees, as well as existing pines, will be retained; and a row of redwood trees are proposed along the residential property line. Mr. Gary Black, Barton-Asch¢nan Associates, spoke regarding the parking ratios provided, indicating that surveys taken by their coanpany show that the provided parking is adequate for this development; and, they would recommend a compact ratio of 60 0. Mr. Boone presented a table representing parking ratios. He noted that the developer is not asking the Camrnission to allow maximum usage on this site, but rather to consider the parking ratio~of 1:250. Mr. Boone pre- sented information to correlate this parking ratio. Mr. Marvin Marks, Metro Parking, San Francisco, spoke on methodology for down-scaling parking spaces to facilitate more compact cars and improving efficiency. Mr. Hal Clarke, 168 Michael Dr., stated that when he purchased his property this site was indicated by the City for residential use. There is a 6' fence indicated; however, the parking structure will be above-grade, which does not provide privacy for his property. Mr. Clarke continued that the emergency lane will create traffic problems across Michael Drive. He asked what would buffer Michael Drive from this property, and what would stop employees from this project from parking on Michael Drive. Mr. John Figueroa, property owner of 52 Michael Drive, stated that he was completely opposed to granting of a variance which would allow residentially zoned property to be used for parking; he cited safety of residents in the area; housing impact; privacy of his tenants; security of the office building; undesirable uses of the parking structure when office not in use; noise; air pollution; ~d lack of satisfactory setbacks. Mr. Figueroa asked that if the project i:~ approved, the following conditions be imposed: grade level to stay the same where it borders the Pruneyard Apartments; 8' fence be installed along interior perimeter of the project; parking lot be closed at night; night patrolling to restrict pedestrian traffic; closed circuit monitoring of parking area. Mr. Stafford noted, for the Commission's information, that parking is an allowable use in an R-3 zone under the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Boone stated that the developer could respond to Mr. Figuero's concerns and would be willing to work with him to resolve any problems. -13- Commissioner Perrine pointed out that the plans indicate a solid wall on the second floor of the parking structure so that headlights will not penetrate to the residential area. Mr. Wayne Mitsunaga stated that this was another high density proposal, he did not feel the traffic has been. properly mitigated, the sewage problems are not discussed, the visual impact is not discussed, and he felt .the project should be dawn-sized. Mr. Joseph Gemma., 2160 S. Bascom Ave., spoke in fawr of the project. He felt that the project was beautiful, that the property was zoned for commercial and should be used as such, that Bascom Avenue can handle the traffic, and that the City could use such a nice development. M/S: Campos, Perrine -That the public hearing on UP 84-08 be closed. Motion carried unanimously. M/S: Campos, Kasolas -That the Planning Commission acbpt a resolution approving UP 84-08, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Continent Sheet. Discussion Chairman Dickson stated his amcern with the variance for parking; ~d,the size of the building footprint for this area. He felt that a 4-story structure would be out of place in this location. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she found the building and the plans most attractive; however, for this place and this City, she felt it was too dense. She stated that she did not find the parking compatible with a residential area, and would be adverse to taking residential property off the General Plan to become a parking structure. Commissioner Christ stated that he is opposed to the project, in that he felt it was too large. He added that he would like to see this pro- perty developed, but with a smaller scaled building. Commissioner Campos stated that he is in fawn of the project. .Baker Trailer Sales has been deteriorating very badly, and this area is in need of signifi- cant improvement. This project is very attractive and will provide jobs for people in the area, as well as being a significant improvement for the area. With regard to the parking ratio, he felt that sufficient information has been presented by consultants to indicate that the ratio will work. Crnctinissioner Perrine spoke in favor of the project, stating that he is very impressed with the list the Public Works Department has drawn up as miti- gating measures. He noted that he would like to add an 8' concrete fence and a review of the parking situation within one year of completion of the project. Commissioner Kasolas spoke in fawr of the project, noting that there is not much that can be done about the traffic going through the City. What Staff is trying to do is mitigate. the impacts at the developers expense. He~~ontinued that more jobs in the City will allow residents to work closer to home, thereby reducing traffic problems. -14- Vote on Motion Motion to adopt a resolution approving UP 84-08, with addition of conditions: (1) construct an 8' concrete fence; and (2) review parking situa- tion within one year of project completion. Motion failed with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Campos NOES: Commissioners: Christ, Fairbanks, Dickson ABSENT: Co~rsnissioners: Howard M/S: Fairbanks, Perrine - That UP 84-08 be forward to the City Council due to the tie wte, and at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously. *~~ The Commission recessed at 11:35 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 11:40 p.m. Commissioner Fairbanks left the meet~g at this time. ~~* GP 84-03 Continued public hearing to consider possible City-initiated City-initiated text amendments to the Housing Element of the General Plan. Mr. Stafford reported that Staff is still waiting for comments from the State Department of Housing and CommLmity Development, and would request a continuance to the meeting of August 14, 1984. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Perrine, Kasolas - That GP 84-03 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 14, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. ~~~ MISCELLANEOUS. SA 84-39 Sign application - 2270B S. Bascom Avenue. Golchnine Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Ca~rnnittee. The Committee is recommending a continuance to the meeting of July 24, 1984. M/S: Perrine, Campos - That SA 84-39 be continued to the Plaiming Commission meeting of July 24, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. *~* -15- SA 84-17 Sign application of Mr. Michael Soutas on property Soutas, M. known as 15I N. First St. in a PD-H (Planned Develop- ment/Historic Overlay) Zoning District. .Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was before the Sits and Archi- tectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending a continuance to July 24, 1984. Commissioner Kasolas asked if a downtown signing theme had ever been developed. Chairman Dickson noted that this would be an item for a future study session, and requested the secretary to list this topic. M/S: Perrine, Kasolas - That SA 84-17 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 1984, Motion carried unanimously. ~ ~ ~ Referral from Referral from the City Council regarding a letter from City Crnmcil Mr. Lee Peterson regarding City setback requirements. Mr. Stafford noted that the next joint Planning Commission/City Council study session is scheduled for August 20, 1984. With this in mind, Staff is recom- mending a continuance for this item until September 11, 1984, .which is the first meeting date after the study session. M/S: Chivers, Perrine - That this referral be continued to the Planning Carm~ission meeting of September 11, 1984. Motion __ carried unanimously. ~~~ Report from Report by the City Attorney regarding communication City Attorney from Mr. Danny O'Neill and Mr. Carl Brophy appealing the decision of Staff regarding allowable uses for property known as 600 E. Hamilton Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Dempster reviewed this situation with the Commission-and stated that he sent a letter to Mr. O'Neill stating that ~ie had reviewed the facts and in his opinion Mr. Kee acted within the proverbs of the policy of the Planning Department when Mr. Kee responded to Ms. Linda Kavanaugh as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Commissioner Kasolas stated that it was his understanding that the Planning Department wrote a letter iraterrppreting what they felt was appropriate and this opinion was backed up by the City Attorney. He said he did not know. what authoritythe Playing Commission would have to direct Staff to do anything. Mr. Dempster stated that it is his understanding that Mr. O'Neill does have the right to appeal Mr. Kee's decision to the Commission. The Commission can then ask for an opinio¢i of the City Attorney. Mr. O'Neill can then appeal the decision to the City Council. Mr. Dempster repeated that, in his opinion, Mr. Kee acted within his authority when he responded to an inquiry p Linda Kavanaugh regarding the Bullock's site. -16- Mr. O'Neill stated that fiis=posit'.~an: is~:that thei.I'D~~.zoai.i~.g ai~owed in 1977 on this property was for retail use, and the elimination of that retail use (in that Apple Computers would be warehousing the property) is not a minor change. He recommended that this item be continued so that the Commission could review all the facts. Mr. O'Neill continued that he did not want to see the door opened in 1977, without his knowledge, to now be diluted down to where all the other projects around this site get developed so when the ball reaches them, they have to mitigate alI those impacts that were created by Gold Key. Chairman Dickson stated that the only decision this Comunission can make is whether or not Mr. Kee acted in authority and if this was a minor change or not. Mr. O'Neill handed out documents he wished included in the minutes (attached. hereto). Said docannents are: Letter of November 18, 1976 regarding _R_~ezonin~ Request; letter of July 10, 1984 re 600 E. Hamilton Ave.; memoranchnn of- October 19, 1983 from Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.; Request for public hearing for reclassification or change in zoning dated November 12, 1976; and a Review Committee Corunent Sheet dated November 23, 1976 from the Fire Depart- ment. Mr. ,O'Neill also rec{uested that all docunents included in files pertaining to 600'E. Hamilton Avenue be included in these minutes. (Materials are on file in the Plarming Department.) Commissioner Christ noted that his understanding of the letter from Mr. Kee to Ms. Kavanaugh did not say that the space couldn't be used for retail in the. future; the letter from Ms. Kavanaugh asked if the use they wanted was proper. Mr. Dempster noted that this was correct. Mr. O'Neill asked who has the authority to request changes in the use or status of a property. Mr. Dempster stated that it is his understanding that a retail operation could come back in the future and ask to use the building for the same uses as previously approved. M/S: Kasolas, Perrine - That the Planning Commission uphold the decision of the Planning Director in this matter, and deny the appeal of Mr. O'Neill. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman. Dickson informed bfr.. O'Neill of the appeal process. Mr. Dempster indicated he would prepare some findings for the Council on this matter. ~~~ Staff Report Staff Report regarding meeting place for .Planning Commission Study Session on July 25, 1984 - Com~mmity Center, Room 80. It was the consensus of the Connnission that Staff should proceed on this Study Session as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. *~~ -17- ADJOURI~A~T1T M/S: Campos, Christ -That the Plamning Commission be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 12:18 a.m. _ APPROVED: J. DuW e Dickson irman ATTEST: Phili J. Stafford incip~anner Acting Secretary REOORDED: Linda A. Dennis or g ecre ry