Loading...
PC Min 05/08/1984PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MAY 8, 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, Howard, Campos, Dickson; Principal Planner Philip J. Stafford, Planner II Tim J. Haley, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney J. Robert Dempster, Record- ing Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Planning Director Arthur A. IGee. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 24, 1984 M/S: Perrine, Fairbanks -That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 1984 be approved as submitted. Motion carried with a vote of 3-0-0-5, with Commissioners Campos, Howard, and Fairbanks abstaining due to absence. *** ODI~TIJNI CATIONS Mr, Stafford noted that commamications received pertained. to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. SPECIAL ACTION Ni/S: Kasolas, Howard -That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution of commendation for Jane Meyer. Motion carried. with a vote of 5-0-0-1, with Commissioner Fairbanks abstaining. *** ARCHITECT[1RAL APPROVALS PT~I 84 - Ol Continued rec{ue st of T'Ir . James Harp, on behal f o f Harp, J. ASCOM Inc., for approval of two satellite antennas on property located at 201 E. Hamilton Avenue in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Comunercial) Zoning District. Mr. Stafford reviewed this application for the Commission., noting that it will _ be necessary to have the concurrence of the applicant for a continuance because of the length. of time that .has passed since-the. application was filed. -2- Mr. Jim Campbell, representing ASOO~S Inc., stated that the antennas have been lowered as much as possible and they have been painted to blend with the trees on the site; and, that they would~:continue with the meetings even though they would rather see the item resolved. Crn~enssiorrer Kasolas felt that the applicant deserved to have a decision, and suggested that the Commission be polled as to whether or not they had enough information upon which to make such a decision. r~/S: Campos, Perrine - That M~4 84-01 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 26, 1984. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0) . **~ S 84-05 Continued application of Mr. Jim Dumas, on behalf Dumas, J. of 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 Avenue in a C-2-S .(General Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Stafford reviewed this application for the Conani.ssion, noting that due to the number of occassions this item has been before the Planning Commission and the lack of progress made in receiving a revised submittal, Staff is recommend- ing denial of this application so that it may be removed from the agenda. Mr. Jim Dumas, applicant, stated that since the initial application and review, there were some of the conditions that created hardship upon the site in that it is a very restrictive site. The property owner has been trying to acquire an additional site; however, has been unable to do so at this point. Mr. Dumas requested another continuance,and noted the owner will be coming in with revised plans. Mr. Stafford noted that revised plans for the June 12, 1984 meeting will have to be submitted by Friday, May 25, 1984. N~/S: Kaso].as, Perrine - That S 84-OS be continued to the Plaa~ni_ng Commission meeting of June 12, 1984 in order that revised plans may be submitted. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). ~, MM 84-02 Continued application of Mr. Ken Sternberg for approval Sternburg, K. of modifications to the exterior elevations to an exist- ing restaurant (Remington's) on property lmown as 1730 W. Campbell Ave. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District.. Mr. Stafford reported that Staff is recommending a continuance in order that re- vised plans might be submitted. M/S: Howard, Campos - That MM 84-02 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 22, 1984. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). *** -3- NM 84-13 Continued application of Mr. 0. J. Mitchell for a Mitchell, 0. modification to approved plans to allow the re- allocation of use so as to utilize the entire existing building at 1386 Whiteoaks Rd. for auto- motive related uses whereas it was originally approved for 50~ warehouse and 50~ auto-related uses in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Howard reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The applicant is requesting a continuance to May 22 in order to devise same resolutions to the parking problems; and to try to set up an agreement, with the City Attorney, that states that when a lease expires, the owners will bring the uses into conformance. M/S: Perrine, Howard - That MM 84-13 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 22, 1984.. Motion carried. unanimously (6-0-0) . R 84-05 Request of Mr. Morris Stark for reinstatement of approval Stark, M. of plans and elevations to allow construction of a 5,600 sq.ft. addition to an existing industrial building on property known. as 781 McGlincey Lane in a CM:B-20 (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District. ~ ~ Commissioner Howard reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending reinstatement, subject to condi- tions listed in the Staff Report and red-lining of plans which require the moving of a loading zone to be placed in front of roll-up doors. The removal of one roll-up door is recommended to facilitate positioning for handicapped parking. There was brief discussion regarding the landscaping on-site. Ni/S: Perrine, Howard - That R 84-05 be approved as red-lined, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report, and subject to landscaping plans coming back to the Site Committee. Notion carried unanimously (6-0-0). NM 84-15 Application of Loring and Susan Barfield for a modi- Banfield, L, fica.tion to the sideyard setback to allow a second story addition within 5'8" of the side property line on property known as 1209 Abbott Ave., in an R1-9 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Stafford reviewed this application, noting that Staff is recommending approval. M/S: Howard, Kasolas - That NM 84-15 be approved as reca~amended by Staff, subject. to conditions of approval as stated in the Staff Report. Notion carried unanimously (6-0-0). *** -4- MM 84-14 Application of Mr. Evers, A. cation to approved of a construction 454 McGlincey Ln. Zoning District. Albert Evers, Jr., for a modifi- plans to allow the establishment storage yard on property known as in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Commissioner Howard reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The applicant is requesting a continuance in that he wishes to use the property for more than just storage., and would like to revise his application to include future uses. N~/S: Fairbanks, Howard - That MM 84-14 be continued to the Planning Conenission meetin of June- 12, 1984. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0~. PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 84-03 Continued public hearing to consider the application Sanchez, X. of Mr. Xavier Sanchez for a use permit to allow the move-on of a single family residence onto property known as 75 S. Second St. in a PD (Planned Develop- ment/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Conunissioner Howard reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recmnmending approval subject to conditions and redlining which indicates the building to be moved back 5' and requirement of a 7' setback on the sideyard with no variance. Chairman llickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Campos, Ifasolas - That the public hearing on iTP 84-03 be closed. A~btion carried unanimously (6-0-0). RESOLUTION NO. 2271 N~/S: Ka.solas, Campos - That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving UP 84-03, subject to con~li.tions listed in the Staff Report (attached) and redlining of plans which indicate the building to be moved back 5' and requirement of a 7' setback on the sideyard with no variance. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Howard, Campos, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None Discussion Mr. Helms indicated that-the applicant, Mr. Sanchez, has written a letter to the City Council requesting that the piece of property along the wall on Orchard City Drive, adjacent to his pr rty, on the street side, be sold to him by the City in order that he might combine with his parcel. *** -5- TA 84-03 Public hearing to consider a City-initiated text City-initiated amendment to Chapter 21.68 (Signs) of the Campbell M~micipal Code, regarding nonconforming signs. Mr. Stafford reported that this proposed amendment is in response to a report prepared earlier this year regarding the nonconforming section of the Sign Ordinance and its relationship to the site and architectural review process. In the past, the Commission has had the authority to review signing as part of a site and architectural application. This has been considered a reasonable method to bring signs into conformance and upgrade the aesthetics of the speci- fic project. This past fall, the Council adopted a new Sign Ordinance containing a new "Nonconforming" section. The City Attorney recently reviewed this section and b terpreted that it would not require an existing nonconforming sign to be Staff is recommending an amendment to Section 21.68.150 of the Sign Ordinance which would allow the Commission and/or-City Council to review nonconforming signs as-part of a site and architectural or planned development application. The nonconforming signs could be brought into conformance, modified, or allowed to remain if they are found to be in harmony with adjacent developments and do ~t create a traffic hazard or detract from the aesthetic appearance of a neigh- borhood. roug t into conformance with the present Sign Ordinance as part of a site and architectural. application. This interpretation was not the intent of Staff, in that Staff believes that the authority to review signs, and nonconforming signs, as part of an architectural review is a valuable tool of the City. The proposed amendment would be the addition of the following to Section 21.68.150 (a) ...until such time a change is proposed which requires a permit under Section 21.68.030, or until such time as the Planning Commission and/or Ci y Council reviews si na a and re uires conformance as -art o a site and arc itectura review ursuant to a ter or as art o a anne eve opment ermit pursuant to apter Commissioner Kasolas asked if the adoption of this amendment. would mean that a sign that was non-conforming. in some mariner would have to be brought into con- formance when the owner proposed a modification to his building. Citing an item on this evening's agenda, NM 84-06 (Sternburg), would the applicant have to lower his sign as part of his approval for remodeling. If this is the case, what thought has been given to an instance where someone just wants to clean up his building and is fearful to come before us in that he may"lose his sign. Would this retard commercial redevelopment in the area. Mr. Stafford noted that this is possible; however, the amenc~nent does provide the Commission with the power to allow the non-conforming signs to remain if they find them to be in harmony with. the surrounding development. _ Commissioner Campos asked if this proposed amendment is a result of problems with the existing ordinance--have there been a lot of violations? D4r. Stafford .stated that Staff is requesting direction. In Staff's mind there is some discrepancy between the site and architectural review section and the signing section of the code. The most recent example would be when Goodwill -6- applied for an addition to their building... Their sign is not in conformance with the current Sign Ordinance;. however, because of the wording of the ordi- nance the signing was exempt from being brought into conformance. Commissioner Kasolas asked if there is no action taken on this amendment, will the existing non-conforming signs be exempt from the site and archi- tectural review process? A~fr. Dempster indicated that this is correct--no action would mean that the ~andfather clause would continue as is. He continued that there has been a problem with this issue, and Staff is requesting direction. If this proposed amendment is not approved, Staff would have the understanding that there is to be no sign review of nonconforming signs when a property comes in for altera- tions. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Air. Kent Kirkorian, 106 Longmeadow Dr., Los Gatos, stated that he would agree that signing be reviewed if the current site is demolished, but not if someone is just coming in for the remodeling of a building. Mr. Frank Bertalucci, 1502 Kiner, San Jose, stated that if this amendment is adopted, there will be second thoughts about up-dating commercial buildings. AZs. Dorothy Shattuck, 39I California St., stated she is in fawr of more lenient sign regulations. I+ir. Jim Campbell, 201 E. Hamilton Avenue, stated he is against this amendment. Air. Ted Rogers, Campbell Chamber of Co~merce, noted that the proposal presented by the Chamber provided for the grandfather clause, which would cease to be effected when a business was sold or changed--no reference was made to changes in the business itself. He concluded that this was the basis on which the ordinance was approved by the City Council. Air. Paul Delgrande, 2274 Central Park Dr., spoke against the amendment. A4r. Charles Thompson, 2746 Coit Dr., San Jose,. felt that signing should be placed where it helps people locate the business, and is not a traffic hazard. A~/S: Kasolas, Howard - That `the public hearing for TA 84-03 be closed. A4otion carried unanimously (6-0-0). Discussion Commissioner Fairbanks asked if this .amendment would allow Staff to determine if a non-conforming sign was compatible; and, if the sign did not appear to be compatible, would Staff then present it to the Comni.ssion or Council to give the opporttzntry of Ptliowing it tch remain or recommending a change? AMr. Stafford stated that Staff's current understanding of the ordinance is that if someone wishes to remodel their building,~requiring site and: architectural approval, and their sign is non-conforming--the non-conforming sign will. be allowed to remain. If this amendment is adopted, then the signing, whether non-conforming or conforming, would be brought to the Commission for review. - 7- RESOLUTION N0. 2272 M/S: Kasolas, Campos - That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution denying TA 84-03. Discussion of Motion Chairman Dickson stated that he felt the Commission would be giving away one of the review authorities of the City. The grandfather clause penalizes new business that must comply with the new regulations. He continued that he thought Staff has given the Commission a good amenc~nent to bring the new ordinance into better balance. It would not affect the grandfather clause, but would give the City an opportunity to look at signing .when modifications are made to existing developments. Commissioner Howard stated that he felt businesses that have existed some time should not be penalized. Commissioner Campos noted that since there does not appear to be a hardship at this time, and. the amencbnent could create a hardship on businesses, and the discussions regarding the easing of control factors, he is speaking in favor of this motion for denial. Vote on Motion for Denial AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Howard, Campos NOES: Commissioners: Fairbanks, Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: None ~**.: The Commission recessed at 8:40 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m. *~~ ZC 84-O1 Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Kobza, D. Dennis Kobza on behalf of Regenry monarch Develop- ment Corp. for approval of a zone change from PD (Planned Development) to C-PD (Condominium Zoning) and approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of a 21,232 sq. ft. office building on property-known as 851 E. Hamilton Ave: in a PD (Planned Development/ Commercial and/or Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee; however, the Committee has no recommendation in that there was not a representativeJapplicant at the meeting. Mr. Stafford noted that Staff is recommending a continuance to May 22, 1984 for two reasons: incorrect parking ratio indicated on plans; and, submitted traffic report did not meet the requiremtents of-the Public j4orks Department. -8- Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Ms. Ibrothy Shattuck, 391 California St., asked why this application was before the Commission at this time, when the site will probably be a part of the pro- posed Prometheus Development. Mr. Stafford responded that the subject property is under separate ownership, and as such, the owner is free to make application for any uses allowed under the zoning code. Mr. Stafford stated that to his knowledge, at this time, this property has not been acquired by Prometheus Development. Mr. Don Hebard, 205 Calado Ave., noted that in a recent redevelopment meeting it had been indicated that Prometheus Development was in negotiations with the Martin Oil Co. in Chicago for acquisition of the subject property. 'This con- flicts with information presented this evening. He .asked if ..this was a legit- mate application, and if a continuance would be a stall until after the June S election--or is this application proceeding like a normal application. Mr. Stafford stated that there is an application filed by the architect and signed by the propexty oHmer, dated January 4, 1984, which was filed.in the Plarming Department on January 30, 1984.. Mr. Dempster suggested that a continuance until after the June 5 election ~rould allow the Commission more information at that time. Mr. Bruce Reid, 1509 Walnut Dr., asked what the definition of C-PD is. He continued that he is against ~. continuance in that the applicant has taken everyone's time and did not attend the site meeting or the Commission meet- ing. He felt this application should be removed from the agenda. Mr. Wayne Mitsunaga, 1513 Via Cancion, San Jose, asked about the parking for the project and what the appearance of the building will be. Mr. Stafford noted that, at this point, a continuance wou]:d have to be with the concurrence of the applicant because of the length of time since the application was submitted. He noted that the applicant has submitted revised plans which have not been reviewed as yet. Mr. Dempster stated that the applicant has concurred by hi.s actions of sub- mitting revised plans. He added that if the applicant wished to be heard prior to June, he could so request. M/S: Fairbanks, Perrine - That ZC 84-01 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 26, 1984, with the concurrence of the applicant. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). *** UP 84-05 Public hearing to consider the application of Ms. Schneider, B. Brigitte Schneider for a use permit to allow on- sale beer and wine in a restaurant on property know as 384 E. Campbell Ave., in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning .District. -9- Mr. Stafford reported that the applicant. is requesting approval of a use permit .._ to allow on-sale beer/wine in a restaurant with approximately 60 seats. This application has been routed to the Police Department, and they have no comments. Staff is recommending approval subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and. invited anyone in .the audience to speak for or against this item. Ms. Ibrothy Shattuck, 391 California St., felt that the City is filling up with bars; and, .asked if there would be a time limit on the serving of alcohol at this location. N1/S: Howard, Fairbanks - That the public hearing on iTP 84-05 be closed. Notion carried unanimously (6-0-0). RESOLUTION N0. 2273 N1/S: Howard, Kasolas -That the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving UP 84-05, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Report. Notion carried by the following roll call vote: Discussion of Motion Chairman Dickson stated that he would be opposing the motion in that he did not feel the serving of alcohol was in the best interests of the camtamity. ~- Vote on Notion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Howard, Campos, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: Dickson ABSFTVT: Commissioners: Nave *** NH SOUS SA 84-06 Continued sign application of N1r. James Harp,~on Harp, J. behalf of ASOOM Inc., 201 E. Hamilton Ave., in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. rtr. Haley reviewed this application, Ming that at this time there is a free- standing sign on the site which has been done without a permit; and, a~~wall sign has been approved for this site, but this has not been erected as yet. He continued that the Planning Commission has the authority to approve as marry signs for the property as they wish; and, concluded that Staff is recommending denial of this application in that the sign code allows only one free-standing sign for each parcel of land or commercial center. Nir. Jim Campbell, applicant's representative, stated that the continuances of this application are causing a hardship on their business; that they have previously obtained approximately 400 signatures stating that their sign was not offensive; that they have not been. able to contact Pace t?ptica.l to work out a possible crnxbining of signs; that he would like to resolve this matter aG soon as possible; and, that he would need more time to comply. -19- Commissioner Kasolas asked the applicant if he was requesting a continuance, and if so--perhaps he could give thet;Chair a firm date for the resolution of this application. Commissioner Campos also asked that N(r. Campbell give the Commission a definite date for resolution of this problem. N~. Campbell noted that he was unable to give a fine date because he did not know how long it would take a sign company to design and construct the signing. Commissioner Kasolas suggested the applicant might be willing to withdraw his application until such time that he could work things out. Perhaps a realistic continuance might be for six weeks--or,perhaps a deci:s~on should be rendered this evening. Air. Campbell asked that the Commission give him an approval of the sign that is on the property now, If no approval is given t:~is evening, he will try to get the pxoblem~ worked out. Mr. Dempster illdic3ted that the policy of the Commission has been to not allcna two free-standing. signs on one property. He noted to the applicant that it would be best if he picked a definite date for a continuance, got iris .problems resol_ve3, acid came back to the Co~rnnission with a solid pro- posal. N1/S: Kasolas, - That the Planning Co~nission deny SA 84-06 and that the applicant be given a period of_ up to 4 months to re~mov+c they existing sign . Motion dies for 13ck of a second. NIr. Campbell asked that Commissioner Kasolas withdraw his motion, and requested a continuance for 30 days. N~/S: Kasolas, Howard - That SA 84-06 be continued for 90 days, to the Planning Commission meeting of August 14, 1984, and if this problem is not resolved at that time, that the Commission take definite actiam. Discussion of Notion Chairman Dickson noted he would be opposing the motion in that he felt this issue had been continued long enough. Vote on Notion AYES: Commissioners: ICaso7.a.s, Howard, Campos NOES: Commissioners: Fairbanks, Perrine, Dickson Motion for continuance to August 14, 1984 fails with a tie wte of 3-3-0. N1/S: Fairbanks, Campos - That SA 84-06 be continued to the Plaiming Commission meeting of June 12, 1984. Notion carried with a vote of 4-2-0, with Commissioners Howard and Dickson voting ,~o~~. *** -11- SA 84-13 Continued signing request for property known as In-Depth 30.30 S. Winchester Blvd. in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. Stafford briefly reviewed this application, noting that commaiication has been received from the applicant requesting a two-week continuance. Nir. fia,ley noted that the majority of signing requests on this evening's agenda are a result of code violations. N~/S: Fairbanks, Howard - That. SA 84-1 3 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 12, 1984, and that the applicant be notified that no further continuance will be granted. Motion carried unanimously j6-0-0). ~** SA 84-18 Sign application of N1r. Bi11 Farmer, on behalf of Firmer, B. Yin Yang Waterbeds, for property known as 24 E. Campbell Ave. Commissioner Howard reported that this .item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee. In that there are some major problems with this application, and the applicant is working with Staff to bring the signing into conformance, the applicant has requested a continuance to June 12, 1984. The Committee is _ in t~oncurrence with this request. ~. N1/S: Fairbanks, Perrine - That SA 84-I8 be continued to the Planning Commission meetin of Juoe 12, 1984. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0~. SA 84-19 Sign application of Nfr. 1?ru Jeanis, on behalf of the Jeanis, D. Tire Market, Inc., for property known as 960 Dell Ave. CorIIni.ssioner Howard reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee. In that there are some major difficulties with the sighing program on this site, the applicant is requesting a continuance to June 12. Com~aissioner Howard added that he has requested information regarding all exist- ing permits on this site to be included in the next Staff Report. NI/S: Fairbanks, Perrine - That SA 84-19 be continued to the Planning Commission meetin of June 12, 1984. Notion carried unanimously ~6-0-0~. *~* - SA 84-20 Sign application of Vercelli's for afree-standing Vercelli's sign on property known as 331 Hacienda Ave. _ Commissioner Howard reported that this request was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending a continuance to May 22, 1984. -I2- Nt/S: Howard, Perrine - That SA 84-20 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 22, 1984. Notion carried unanimously (6-0-0). **~ Referral from Referral from City Council regarding ordinance regula- City Council ting satellite dish antennas. Mr. Stafford reported that at its meeting of April 17, 1984, the Council considered the Commission's request for a study session to discuss the issue of satellite antennas, and took action to direct the Commission to proceed with the preparation of a draft ordinance as soon as possible. In order to bring this matter back to the Commission before July I0, 1984, it is necessary that the Commission adopt a resolution setting Jame I2, 1984 as the date for a hearing to consider the draft ordinance. Commissioner Fairbanks asked if a draft of the ordinance could be given to the Commission as an informational item at the next meeting in order that they might begin to work an it. Additionally, she requested that Staff might wish to address the difficulties/options inwlved with looking at applications for antennas on an individual basis (as discussed at a previous meeting). Commissioner Kasolas stated that from information presented by persons speaking on the satellite antennas at a previous meeting, it would appear almost impossi- ble to put any of these dishes into back yards without putting them pretty high. He asked what the possibility would be of anyone being able to comply with the regulations, and thought-that there might have to be different sets of circum- stances for different zoning districts. Commissioner Perrine noted that the only thing that appeared to be a problem during the previous discussion of this issue (from the satellite applicant) was the height limitation of 14'. It was indicated previously that the ideal height would be 15'. NLs. Dorothy Shattuck, 391 California St., asked if this proposed ordinance would be affected by the proposed change in the setback requirements. N1r. Stafford noted that the discussion on the setbacks will be coming back to the Commission on July 10, 1984, and is not part of this referral back from the City Council. N~/S: Howard,. Campos - That the Planning Commission set the date of June 12, 1984 as the date for public hearing to consider a draft ordinance establishing.regulations for satellite dish antennas. Notion carried unanimously (6-0-0). ADJOInirAZEN'I' ~** NI/S: Howard, Perrine -That the meeting beadjourned. -`, The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. APPROVED: J. DuWa a Dickson ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee lr~n ecretary REOORI~D: Linda A. Dennis cor ing cre ary w ~`~ /~ .. ~yC, May 8, 1984 0 ~~~M MAY 0 8 1984 CITY OF CAMPBELL pu.NNIN3 DEPARTMENT CITY OF CAMPBELL 75 North Central Avenue Campbell, California 95008 Attention: Mr. A. A. Kee Planning Department RE: SA 84-13 3030 S. ti1finchester B1. Dear Mr. Kee: Please continue the above referenced application scheduled for Tuesday, May $, 1984 at 7:3o P.M. I need additional time to further research this matter. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely,. .~ /.. ~' Jeff Mc~'Jard ~~~~`"l/ INDEPTH 303 S. Winchester Blvd. Campbell, California 95008 ~ ~~r~od~ MAY 08 1964 CITY OF CAMPBELL PL:ANNINQ DEPARTMENT COND1 T IONS OF ArrROVAL R 84-05 ArrL 1 CAT 1 ON oP : Stark, M. Page 1 1 Revised elevations and site plan to be approved by the Plannin Director upon. recommendation of the Architectural Advisor, wi 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 Commission w th- in 30 days of Planning Commission approval. 2 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. 3 Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Site & Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission prior to app ication or a u~ ing permit. n/a 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. 4 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. 5 Applicant to eit~t~er (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $ 1,0 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas w t 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 #or a building permit. 6 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. 7 Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney, limiting the use of the property to: 1,.368 square feet of office use, 13,822 square feet o m~u acturing use, prior to issuance a ui ing permit. 8 All- mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be "- screened as approved by the Planning Director. 9 Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements are installed. *n/a: not applicable to this application. CONDITIONS 0~ APPROVAL - S 62-14 Application of: Stark, M. Page 2 the aDPlicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinances of the City of Campbell •nd 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 concrett curbs or bumper guards. g - Underground utilities to bt provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Cs^~pbetl Municipal Code. [ Planz submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall -'- indicate clearly the location of all eonncctions for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables. etc. D 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 Department. .(Section 21.b8.030 of -the Campbell Municipal Code.) E Ordinance No. 782 of the CampbellnMdu~~s~osal ofcrefuse,agarbaget '"""-' any contract for the collection a P wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the city of Campbell shall be made wit11C~innle±famtly,dwellingos~a-ultiple This requirement applies to a g apartment unitsind constru~oniestabtishments~ndustrial, manufacturing, f Trash container(s) of a size and quantity nfOVeaaeY thesfire Tne __ development shall be located in area(s) aPP Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist . of a concrete floor surroundedlbe s scifdied~by thefFire Department• have self-closing doors of a s = grade level. All enclosures to be constwcted at ~ G Applicant shalt tomply with all appropriate State and City re4uire- --"'~ ments for the handicapped. N A Noise levels for the t~terior ondrlccal^:t;~a.~e~sa:hlndica ~dy with mir+inwm State (Title TS). a in the Noise Element of the Can-pbctt general Plan. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - S 82-14 Application of: Stark, M. ~~ ge ; FIRE DEPARTMENT 1) Provide an automatic fire extinguishing system for new and existing building. 2) Relocate trash enclosure to within 50' from street. 3) Provide 2A-1OBC fire extinguishers. PUBLIC WORkS DEPARTMENT 1) Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees and post surety for driveway relocation. 2) Driveway approach is to be 25 feet wide. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: 1) Roof covering, not shown, shall be fire retardant as per Section 1704. STAtJDARD FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT CtN~C4EitT: The applicant. is hereby ..notified that the property #s to be maintained free of any combustible trash debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. Ail exfstirtg structures shall be kept secured by having windows boarded,up and doors seated shut. or be demotished or removed from property. Sect. 11aOi 11.414. i9Z9 Edition of Uniform fire Code. The applicant is notified that he/szhr shah compiy with atl appliubie Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pert~tn to this development and are not herein specifisd. OON'DITIONS OF APPROVAL: NAM 84-15 APPLICANT: Barfield, L. SITE ADDRESS: 1209 Abbott Avenue P. C. Mtg.: 5/8/84 Page 1 of 1 1. Applicant to meet all requirement imposed by the Santa Clara Valley 1Vater District. 2. Applicant to obtain all necessary permits from the Building Department.