Loading...
PC Min 04/10/1984PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES APRIL 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, Meyer,. Hrnaard, Campos, Fairbanks, Dickson; Planning Director Arthur A. Kee, Principal Planner Philip J. Stafford, Engineering A7anager Bill Helms, City Attorney J. Robert Dempster, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None. COAT'NNICATIONS A'!r. Kee reported that cormunications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. APPROVAL OF T'RNUT'ES D9arch 27, 1984 It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Perrine, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes if D4arch 27, 1984 as submitted. Motion carried with a vote of 5-0-0-2, with Commission- ers Meyer .and I-iow•ard abstaining due to absence. *** ARCHTFECTtJRAL APPROVALS S 84-05 Continued application of Mr, James Donnas, an•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. Kee reported that Staff is recommending a continuance of this. item in that revised plans have not been received. It was moved by Gorrnnissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer, that S 84-05 be continued to the Planning Co2rnnission meeting of April 24, 1984. Notion carried unanimously. ** -2- S 84-08 Application of LRS Associates for approval of plans _ LRS Associates and elevations to allow the construction of a retail/ office building on property known as 990 E. Hamilton Avenue in a C-Z-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. _ Commissioner Howard reported that this application was discussed by the Site and Architectural. Review Committee. The Committee is of the opinion that the design of the project is outstanding and is recommending approval. After discussion with the Architectural•Advisor, it was agreed that the proposed "polar white" color would be appropriate for this building. In response to a question regarding roof heights as theyy relate to adjoining buildings, Nfr. Kee indicated that this structure would be higher than the fire shop to the west, as well as higher than the building to the immediate south; however, since this is a corner lot it should not look out of proportion. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Dteyer, that S 84-08 be approved, subject to conditions as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. bbtion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS EIR 84-01 Continued public hearing to consider the Draft EIR for LRS Associates a proposed research ~ development complex on property known as 743 $ 749 Camden Avenue in an M-1-S (Light ~~ Industrial) Zoning District. rsr. Stafford reviewed the additional information presented for this project in response to concerns expressed by the Connnission at its meeting of March 27, 1984. Staff i:s recommending that the Ca~rnnission certify the EIR as complete and that mitigating measures therein be used in reviewing the development plans for the proposed project. Commissioner Fairbanks noted that she was not in. agreement .with the LAFoO study as it pertains.to the jobs housing balance. Additionally, -she asked if the wording in Staff's Reco~nnendation (2) might be changed from 'be used" to "be considered" . Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. T'fr. Bruce Reid, 1509 Walnut Drive, stated that he did not understand how 300 jobs could be brought into the area and not increase traffic. Nh. Helms reviewed the trip distribution figures included in the EIR. Mr. Jim Campbell, 802 Century Ave.,-spoke for. the project noting that 300 cars would not make that much of a differ~ce on the arterial struts in the area. -~ No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by (bmmissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer, that the public hearing be closed. Dlotion carried imam- -~ mously. -3- A'btion It was moved by Commission er Fairbanks,- and - that the Plaaning Commission certify the EIR ing measures contained therein be considered plans for the proposed project. Discussion of Nbtion seconded by Commissioner Howard, as complete and that mitigat- in reviewing the development Comnissimier-Fairbanks commented regarding the change in wording, from "used" to "oonsi+dered", noting that she felt that "used" implies that measures will be used, and'-she felt that this is something that might not necessarily happen. She continued that "considers" is not quite as heavy and appears to give a little more choice on the mitigating measures. Commissioner Kasolas stated his concern about this change in wording, and asked for a definition of "use". Once an EIR is certified, what is to further transpire regarding the development. of the project--are you to "consider" or to "use" the mitigating measures. h~. Kee noted that the requirement is that the Commission determine if the EIR contains enough nfornation upon-which to make a decision regarding the project. Staff is recommending that there is enough information provided upon which to make this decision--mitigating measures may or may not be included in the. approval of the project. The EIR is an informational docUnent and can accepted or not accepted as adequate information upon which to make a decision. Air. Dempster noted his agreement with this information. Commissioner Campos stated that his understanding is that the word "used" would be stranger in definition. Vote an Notion RESOLUTIOS`1 N0. 2265 ~ It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Gomnissioner Howard, that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution certifying EIR 84-01 as complete, .and that mitigating measures Contained therein be considered in reviewing the development plans for t e proposed project. Abtion carried with the following roll call wte: AYES: Commissioners: Perrine, Meyer, Howard, Fairbanks., Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Campos ABSENT: Commissvners: None commissioner Fairbanks asked if Commissioners Kasolas-and Campos felt there was same information not included in the EIR that should be addressed. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he did not wish to address this question. **~ -4 - S 83-18 Continued application of LRS Associates for approval LRS Associates of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a research $ development complex on property known as 743 ~ 749 Camden Avenue in an M-1-S- (Light Indus- trial) .Zoning District. Mr. Kee reviewed this project for the Commission, indicating that Staff is recommending approval subject to conditions listed in the Staff Cbmnent Sheet. Mr. Ken Rodrigues, applicant, responded to questions asked at the previous meeting regarding the roof-mounted equipment and the landscapping. He noted that they will be steering tenants towards using equipment that can be clustered on the roof and this would be placed directly over the :entry to the building and screened by the design of-the building, using black aluminum screening or texcote which matches the building. The buildings are almost the same height as the overpass ramp so traffic will not be looking down onto the roof. Mr. Rodrigues continued by descxibing the common landscape areas and the employee's amenities. The 5' landscaping setback along the railroad tracks is proposed for dense screening of thick shrub materials to screen cars, with txees every 18" on center. rfr. Kee indicated that the landscaping plans are proposed to come back to the Site Committee for review. Commissioner Fairbanks felt that this is a very important site in Campbell, and she is concerned with the landscaping. She noted she would plan to suggest a change when the plans are reviewed. Mr. James Campbell,-802 Century Avenue, spoke in favor of this project. Dbtion It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Ooninissioner Perrine, that S 83-18 be approved subject to conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion. for Amendment Commissioner Fairbanks moved that the motion for approval be amended to pro- vide that the landscaping plans come before-the Commission for review. Motion died for lack of a second. Vote on Motion for Approval Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). **~ PUBLIC HEARINGS HPB 84-01 Continued public hearing to consider possible historic Soutas, A4. designation of property known as 151 N. First St. Mr. Kee reviewed this application, and stated that Staff is of the opinion that the designation of this property as an historic landmark would be con- sistent with the purposes of the historic preservation ordinance and the City's General Plan. -5- Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. NIs. Dorothy Shadduck, 391 California St., asked about the location of the property. No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the public hearing be closed. Notion carried. unanimously. RESOLiTTION N0. 22b6 It was moved by Conanissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve. a change change from PD (Planned Development) to PD-H (Planned Development-Historic Overlay). to allow the designation of the property and. structure located at 151 N. First St. Notion carried with the following roll call vote AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Meyer, Howard, Campos, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES.: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None *** UP 84-03 Continued. public hearing to consider the application of Sanchez, X. 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 Devel opnrent/D4edium Den - sity Residential) Zoning District. A4r. Kee reported that Staff is recor-mending a continuance on this. item. in order that revised plans may be submitted. Commissioner Campos asked about the structural conditions of the building pro- posed for moving. D4r. Stafford indicated that the structure being moved is structurally sound. The structure referred to in the Staff Report as being. questionable is an existing carport on the property that this house is being'rroved to. Commissioner Kasolas asked about the zoning and-the overlay zoning on this property as it pertains to the do~town commercial area and redevelopment. Nlr. Kee responded that the zoning in this area resulted from a study of the downtown area. The PD zoning was established in order that any develop- ment could be reviewed by the Comnission and the Council. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. No one wishing to speak, it was mAVed by Commissioner Meyer, and seconded. by Colrnnissioner Howard, that UP 84-03 be continued to the meeting of April 24, 1984. Notion carried unanimously. *~* -6- UP 84-04 Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ibane, P. Peter Doane, on behalf of the Covenant Church of Campbell, fora use permit to allow the estab- lishment of a church in a previous school site located on property known as 1300 Sheffield Avenue (Ibver School) in a P-F (Public Facilities/Public, Semi-Public) Zoning District. Dir. Kee reviewed this application for the Commission, noting that Staff's main concern is regarding the parking. There is room on-site for addi- tional parking, and Staff has reviewed the possibilities with the applicant. b~. Kee continued that Staff is of the opinion that if the parking could be resolved, the recommendation may not have to be for a continuance. A letter from Dr. Ronald Rescig~o, Superintendent at Campbell Union School District, was read into the record by the Recording Secretary (attached hereto). Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Dir. John Isaacs, 3392 Fawn Dr., San Jose, Assistant Pastor for the church, explained the floor areas proposed for use. Mr. Isaacs stated that they are working out a Plan to use a blacktop area thereby providing up to 100 narking spaces. He expressed difficulty with the con~?ition limiting the occupancy of the facility to 200 people when the present occupancy is listed at over 400, and difficulty with the condition requiring that the seats be bound together. However, *~1r. Isaacs noted that they are willing to meet all the conditions listed with the exception of the occupancy limit of 200 people, and he requested that the occupancy limit be changed to reflect the current limit indicated for the facility. dir. Kee noted that Staff did not have a problem with the increased occupancy if adequate on-site parking could be provided. Additionally, Mr. Kee indi- cated that if the use permit were approved for a three-year period, this would coincide with the lease agreement. This would assure a review of the use permit in the future, with a definite limit frame. Ts. Dorothy Shadduck asked about keeping the school site as a school .for possible future use by the school district, and if the church would be maintaining the property. P•'Er. Kee explained that the property would be maintained by the school district, and the leasing of the property allowed the district to maintain ownership of the school in case it would be needed for future use as a school. A4s. Janine Cassidy, Campbell ifiion School District, explained the district's policy for landbanking the school sites. D'Ir. George Miskulin, 277 r4anchester Ave., stated his concern regarding the parking situation because of the residences in the area. Mr. Floyd Janeway, 409 Keith Dr., acting as coordinator for the project, stated that a plan will be presented for parking utilizing the existing basketball courts, and this area will be maintained and resurfaced at end of the lease. -7- Dtrs. Charlotte Wendell, 285 Manchester Ave., expressed her concern about the school's open space being available for neighborhood use, as well as -_: the traffic situation. She noted the heavy weekend use, particularly on Saturday evenings. Mr. Isaacs noted that the church is currently meeting on Saturday even- ings because they have been using someone else's facility; however, it is their belief that once they are able to get into their own facility they will be able to change to Sunday morning for services. The school use they have is a private school with approximately 65 students at this point. Mr. Jim Campbell, 802 Century Ave., spoke in favor of this use. No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 2267 It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer, that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving iJP 84-04, subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet; and, subject to the condition that the parking lay- out be approved by Staff; and, that the use permit be approved for a period of three years. Discussion of Dbtion Commissioner Campos expressed his concern that all the problems associated with this permit had not been solved, and suggested that the approval be for a period of one year to begin with. Commissioner Kasolas suggested that the approval be for a one year period and if, after review, there were no problems, the permit could be extended for two additional years to coincide with the lease agreement. Commissioner Howard noted he would prefer the motion to stand as stated. Amendment to Nbtion Commissioner Campos moved, and Commissioner Fairbanks seconded, that the motion for approval be amended to provide for a one year review of this permit and if, after review, no problems existed, the permit be extended for two years thereafter. Discussion of Amendment Commissioner Howard felt that the scheduled review period was unnecessary in that if there are complaints received the item can be brought back be- fore the Commission. ~~ Commissioner Fairbanks noted that with other school properties being leased to private users, wherein the land remains public property, there does appear to be a tendency on behalf of the leasee to treat the property as their own, thereby limiting public-usage as open space. She felt that the suggested review process might help to alleviate this possibility. -8- Vote on Amendment for One Year Review AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Vote on Original I~btion AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Campos, Fairbanks, Dickson Meyer, Howard None Kasolas, Perrine, Meyer, Howard, Campos, Fairbanks, Dickson None Nane *** The Commission recessed at 9:00 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m. *** TA 84-02 Public hearing to consider a City-initiated amendment City-initiated to the Campbell D~.micipal Code adding Chapter 21.57-- Provisions Applying to Special iJses. Dir. Stafford reported that in preparing this draft ordinance Staff utilized information and ordinances provided by the American Planning Association and the League of California Cities in developing the satellite dish antenna regulations, as well as contacting a number of nearby cities to determine local regulations for satellite dishes. Mr. Stafford continued that Staff is recommending the addition of a new chap- ter to the zoning ordinance entitled "Provisions Applying to Special Uses" which would include the regulations for satellite dish antennas and cargo storage containers. By adding this chapter, it would eliminate the need to amend every zoning district where the uses would apply. In addition, when regulations for other special types of uses are needed they could be added in this chapter. Commissioner Kasolas asked how a dish antenna differed from a roof-mmunted solar heating unit, if at all, from an aesthetic point of view. Mr. Kee responded that Staff has. taken the position that any roof-mounted equipment in commercial, industrial, or residential districts must be screened, and would view the dish anternlas as roof-mounted equipment. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the recently approved solar units on Wesley Manor were to be screened, and in his opinion, this situation was not aesthetically pleasing from anywhere in the community. He continued that he did not think the dish antennas were visible unless one looked for them. Commissioner Fairbanks noted her concern with some of the roof mounted solar equipment throughout the community. She asked if the installation of this equipment required a permit;.and, if perhaps this type of equip- ment should be moved into this proposed chapter. -9- Tfr. Kee stated that the policy at this time requires a permit for the installa- tion of solar equipment. And, in the case of Wesley Ntanor, the permit was held up in order that the Commission could review the proposal. Commissioner Fairbanks asked about the height limitations proposed, and if it would be possible to have antennas higher than the buildings. under the non- residential districts. Mr. Stafford indicated that the 14' proposed for residential districts reflects the height limitation of an accessory building. Regarding the non-residential districts, it would be Staff's intention that to have an antenna located on the roof of a 3-story building would require screening. It is not Staff's intent to approve an antenna or tower that projects above the roof-line. If this situation were proposed, Staff's position would be that the proposal would have to come before the Comrission. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak fox or against this item. P:;s. Dorothy Shadduck, 391 California St., stated that given the proposed ordi- nance, there will be no antennas in the residential areas in that she did not see how people could comply with the regulations. She felt that proposed screen- ing would be less attractive then the antenna itself, that the antenna has the potential of .being a beautiful piece of equipment--however, she was not sure that residential areas are where~.they belong. res. Shadduck"concluded that she loos in favor of wise application, but not in favor of the ordinance because it would not allow this. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the average lot size in the city is 8,000-10,000 sq.ft., which would not allow adequate room for an antenna to be placed under the proposed ordinance; and, this could be eliminating freedom of choice. Mr. Terry Benton, 1751 W. Bayshore, San Jose, Marketing Director with ASOOP•i Inc., spoke at length regarding the tecxmical aspects of installing dish antennas, the sizes of the antennas, and the setback restrictions. He noted that it is felt by the industry that regulations are needed because there are people who will built and install anything. The proposed ordinance under discussion will effect- ively eliminate 650 of the people in the city from having dish antennas. The antenna should be placed an equal distance between the house and property line in case it should fall. Ah. Benton continued that his company could live with the 14' height limit, but it would be very difficult. Mountain View has a 15' apex rule and this gives a chance to clear second story. structures. The an- tennas cannot have any obstacles in their way for optimum reception. Additionally, antennas can be painted different colors and made to blend into the environment. Commissioner Perrine asked approximately what percent of houses in Campbell would not be workable for antenna installation based on environmental factors .such as trees. Mr. Benton responded that they do not put antennas in the front yard (as a company), and the side yards have to be eliminated many times. The antennas effectively have to be placed in rear yards depending on the line of sight-- this is not a problem with 97~ of the homes in the area. However, with the proposed ordinance, approximately 45~ of the homes would be eliminated. There was discussion regarding the height and setback restrictions, wherein Mr_ Benton stated that 15' (rather than 14") would allow just enough of an -10- angle to clear trees or buildings, that 18' would be preferable, however 15' is workable. He indicated a problem with the 20' setback in the R-1 districts, noting that it is easier to apply Nbuntain View's 15' setback and one-by-one rule . - -- Mr. Stafford noted that the current zoning ordinance for R-1 districts has a 5' rear and sideyard setback. However, in the last item on this evening's agenda a 20' setback possibility is discussed. Staff could support deletion of the wording "a distance equal to the height of the antenna." Imo. Benton also stated a problem with screening the antennas in that this would require screening of 4-6' above the roof and would not be as attractive as an antenna that is painted to blend into it's surroundings. Commissioner Fairbanks asked about the usual diameter of a dish. ASS. Benton indicated that in California the 10' diameter dish is best for optimum. reception, and the antennas can be jointly used. I~'Ir. Jim Harp, 201 E. Hamilton Ave., stated that the 14' height really re- stricts the ability to install antennas. The antennas must be 2' off the ground. The dishes located at 201 E. Hamilton Ave. are 19' off the ground. Mr. Harp asked what the difference was between the dish antennas and swing sets or gazebos that extended above the fence. I~ir. Kee stated that should a swing set be constructed that is 14' high, the - City is going to become concerned about it. Anything over 6' high becomes a concern as far as the building code. Mr. Kee indicated that Staff's intent in bringing this subject to the Commission is not to solve all the problems - this evening, but rather to bring this issue to the Commission's attention, in that the American Planning Association has observed that this is one of the hottest issues in the country--and will have to be addressed at some point. Nfr. Kee noted that perhaps a study session might be desirable. rir. Lewis, 4498 Jane Way, San Jose, stated that there is an amendment before the United States Congress on this very issue, with the emphasis that if it is not permissable for someone to have a dish in their yard,. you have taken a fundamental right from that person to watch something on television. He felt-that the antennas should never be put in someone's front yard, and would argue the property owner's right to put an antenna wherever he liked. He suggested that this issue might be studied further, and noted that it would be hard for him to live with the setback area, and that the ordinance might be rrore concerned with the setting of antennas on roofs. Mr. Bruce Reid, 1509 t9alnut Drive, stated that he was not against the dish antermas but questioned the setback that would allow his neighbor to back the dish up to his fence so that he would have to look at it. He felt that the dish should be as close to the house as possible so that neighbors are not offended by it over the back fences. Dlr. Jim Campbell stated he would like to get away from the fact that Sta€f - keeps putting these dishes into the same category as air-conditioners, etc., in that it makes it very difficult when you talk about screening and setbacks. He noted that he would like to see a situation where the company would try to keep the dishes out of sight as much as possible. -11- Mr. Stafford reviewed the second portion of the proposed ordinance as it pertains to cargo storage containers. Commissioner Perrine asked what makes these containers so unique, and are they structurally sound. T~. Stafford responded that it is not a question of the structural soundness, but rather than the zoning ordinance does have the authority to make sure that they are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Kee noted that these containers are designed for shipping goods by train, ship and truck, and are not considered permanent buildings. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. No one wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Perrine, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion Commissioner Kasolas stated that he had no objection in speaking in fawr of the ordinance for cargo containers. Regarding the dish antennas, he felt that the Commission did not have sufficient information, and that the only objection to them thus far seems to be that the possibility exists that there may be a problem in the future. He felt that this should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Campos stated that he would not like to .see the residential areas of the City covered with 10 '12' satellite dishes. He felt that the setbacks must be protected, and that the City has a right to protect itself. Commissioner Fairbanks noted she had questions regarding how many of these antermas might be installed in the City, and what would happen to the Staff workload if permits would have to come through the office, and what might happen if the applications were considered on a case-by-case basis as opposed to all of them under one set of requirements. Tyr. Kee indicated that this would be a workable approach,. at this point, to have them looked at by Staff prior to issuance of a permit if there were some standards set for Staff's and the Commission's consideration. Commissioner Campos noted that with an ordinance there would possibly be 5,000 residential properties that could qualify for an antenna; without the ordinance, approximately 9,000 homes could place such an antenna. He felt that this would place a burden on Staff, and spoke for some sort of controls. Commissioner Perrine noted that it is helpful for Staff to have set guidelines to deal with applications. Commissioner Howard asked if a permit would be rec{uired for installation of --- dish antennas . Mr. Kee noted that under the proposed ordinance, a building permit would be required with Staff approval. -12- Chairman Dickson stated that he would disagree no problem at this point. One of the function to iron out things before they became problems. was necessary,. and suggested that this issue session with the Council be requested. Motion with the comment that there is s of the Plarming Commission is He felt that an ordinance be continued and that a study It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by ComIInissioner Campos, that TA 84-02, Chapter 21.57, Section 21.57.020, as it pertains to sate- llite dish antennas, be continued for 90 days, and that a study session be requested with the City Council to discuss this issue. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION N0. 2268 It was moved by Commissioner I-bward, and seconded by Connnissioner Campos, that the Planning Comnnission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve TA 84-02 as it pertains to cargo storage con- ainers. Dbtion carried by the following roll call wte: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Dieyer, Howard, Campos, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners:' None ABSENT: Commissioners: Nave MISCELLEINEOUS R 84-04 Continued request of Daiwa House Corp. for modifica- Daiwa House tion to approved plans, and reinstatement of approval for construction of 30 condominium units on property known as 440 $ 456 Llewellyn Avenue (ZC 83-04 ~ TS 83-OS). Commissioner Howard reported that this item was before the Site and Archi- tectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval of the proposed modifications as well as a reinstatement of the approval and revised development schedule. Air. Kee stated that Staff would like to add to the recommendation for approval that the revised plans, as they pertain to decks on the second floor levels, come back to Staff. Commissioner Fairbanks asked about the zoning on this parcel, and how this footprint differed from the original approval. Mr. Kee indicated that .the zoning was C-PD; and, the footprint has shifted atinroximately 2' in some areas. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer, that the Plazming Commission recommend that the City Council reinstate its approval of this project and approve the attached revised development sche- dule; and, that the Commission approve the proposed rrodification to the unit type and design, subject to the submittal of revised plans for the approval of the Planning Director, including revisions of deck areas. Motion carried 6-1-0, with Commissioner Fairbanks voting "no". **~ -13- rri 84-08 Application of Tor. Homer Hyde, on behalf of San Jose San Jose Water 1Vater Co ., fora modification to allow the placement of a metal storage building on property lmown as 154 S. First St., in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee, and the Committee is recommending approval subject to condi- tions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Perrine, that bT,i 84-08 be approved subject to conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. A3~tion carried unanimously. *~* SA 84-05 Continued application of Winston Tire Co. for a sign Winston Tire Co. permit to allow an additional 48 sq.ft. sign on pro- perty known as 1800 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee, and the Committee is recommending approval subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Continent Sheet. The Committee is of the opinion that the signing problem has been addressed. It was moved by Comtinissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Continissioner Meyer, that SA 84-OS be approved subject to conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. Aiotion carried unanimously. * * ~ SA 84-13 Signing request for property ]mown as 3030 S. 1~dinchester In-Depth ?31vd. in an pq-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Howard reported that this item was considered by the Site and Archi- tectural Review Committee. The applicant is requesting a continuance in order that he might submit revised plans. It was moved by Continissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Perrine, that SA 84-13 be continued to the Planning Corti--ission meeting of April 24, 1984. P4otion carried unanimously. *** r'~i 84-06 Application of TTr. Ken Sternhurg for approval of modi- Sternburg, K. fications to the exterior elevations to an existing restaurant (~temington's) on property ]mown as 1730 1V. Campbell Avenue in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Howard reported that this application was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee, and the Committee is recommending a continuance ____ in order that revised plans may be submitted. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Perrine, that Phi 84-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. *** -14 - Referral from Referral from the City Council regarding letter from City Council A4r. Lee Peterson regarding City setback requirements. Tor. Kee reviewed this referral noting that the main issue is whether or not the rear yard area should be .increased in residential area s. The cement 5' rear yard•:setback has been in existence for marry years; however, the majority of homes in the City are constructed with a 20' rear yard. If the Commission so desires, a public hearing could be set. .Another issue addressed in r~r. Peterson's letter is building height in residential areas. Commissioner Kasolas stated that one concern which should be addressed with regard to setbacks is the expansion of a house. He felt that it would be more realistic to compare setbacks with Gilroy and Plilpitas, rather than Los Altos and Saratoga, and suggested that the Commission get some more information and keep in mind the direction that this community is going in, specifically with the issue of providing housing. This issue might also be an item for a study session. It was .moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that this item be continued for 90 days and be added to an agenda for a Study sessis~r~~aitb the f'.ity ('.o~mr.il _ bhti~n ra~as~.rl.amanimnvz7v OTI-IER ITEt~1S BROUGHT UP BY CC~•?~fISSION Commissioner Perrine expressed a concern regarding the licensing of people wfio submit drawings to the Commission, and the possibility that the Commission might be liable if something that isapproved falls cbwn. He requested clari- - fication as to what the Cmrnnission's responsibility would be if in fact a drawing is submitted by a person who is not licensed. Imo. Dempster pointed out that the City Attorney's and cities don't usually police this type of thing, but take the position that when someone says they are a licensed designer or architect we accep that. If someone feels this is not the case or feel that professional ethics are being violated, there are professional agencies to report this to. Nh~. Dempster noted that he would research the liability factors. and report back. Commissioner Perrine stated that his question really pertains to those that we know are not licensed. Commissioner Kasolas felt that the licensing issue is not really the Commission's role. The Commission's role is really looking at the land use, which is only a small part of the total picture. The Commission does not become involved in checking the structural correctness of plans. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he did not think the Commission has any liability in this matter. Imo. Dempster indicated that plans are routed through all the departments in the City for comment in each particular area. He noted that he did not think the Commission wished to become a licensing board. ~. Mr. Kee noted that Staff could check with other cities to see how they handled _ this situation. Commissioner Fairbanks commented that she has had these same thoughts over a period of time, specifically .over the aesthetics- which seem to match the -15- expertise and quality of the presentation. She noted that she has come to the conclusion that the Building Department should be relied upon to answer these structural questions. *** ADJOURI~A'IENT It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas, that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. APPROVED: J. Du~~1a a Dickson finnan ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee ecretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis ecor ing ecretary CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S 84-08 P. C. Mtg.: 4/10/84 APPL i CAT 1 ON OF : Associates Page 1 990 E. Hamilton Ave. N A Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Pla~nn=ng Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor, within 30 days of the Planning Commission approval. N A Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Site b n n with- Architectural Review Committee and/or the Planning Commissio ~n 30 days of Planning Commission approval. 1 Property to be fenced and. lands taped as indicated and/or added in red on plans. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. 2 Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of irrigation system to be submitted for approval of the Site & Architectural Review Committee and/or Planning Commission prior to app icat~on fora ui 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 fora building permit. ~ 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 $ 5000 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 for a 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. 5 Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney, limiting the use of the property to: 3526 square feet of office use, 3744 square feet of retail use, prior to issuance of a ui ing permit. 6 All mechanical equipment on roofs and all utility meters to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 7 Building occupancy will not be allowed until public improvements _ are installed. *n/a: not applicable to this application. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-08 APPLICATION OF: LRS Associates Page 2 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. B Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell ~iunicipal Code. C Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connect ions for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and tele- vision 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 Depart- ment (Sect ion 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code). E Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbacle and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apart- ment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. F 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. G 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. STANDARD FIRE HAZARD 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 demoli: ed or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 & 11.4I4, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Cc CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-08 APPLICATION OF: LRS Associates Page 3 PUBLIC WOR}:S DEPARTT'~~TI' H. Reimburse City for the cost or reconstruction of curb, gutter and sidewalk in the amount of $22,518.00. I. Relocate driveway on Bascom Avenue to avoid existing power pole or relocate pole. J. Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees and post surety for all work in the public right of way. FIRE DEPARTTiEN'T K. Pro~ride parapets on the south F, west exterior walls. L. Provide two 2A:lOBC fire extinguishers on the first $ second floors. BUILDING. DEPARTTIEVT D9. Roof covering shall be fire retardant as per section 1704-3203. 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. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 83-18 APPLICATION OF: LRS Associates Page 2 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. B Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. C 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. 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 Depart- ment (Section 21.68.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code). E Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apart- ment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. F 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. A11 enclosures to be constructed at grade. level. G 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. STANLIARD FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT COMMENT: The spplicant js hereby notified that the property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds until the time that actual construction cbmmenc~es. AlI existing structures shal. be kept secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or De demoli, ed or removed from the property. Sect. 22.201 i 1I.414, 2979 Ed. Uniform Fire C~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 83-18 APPLICATION OF: LRS Associates Page 3 FIRE DEPARINID~IT Access H. provide 20 foot Fire Department access driveway serving the entire complex. I." Parking shall be prohibited on fire access driveways with signs posted to that effect. J. .Building projections and/or landscaping shall not encroach upon the open space above driveways. Occupancy K. A signed docwnent with intention of occupancy shall be provided. L. Any areas using quantities of hazardous materials in excess of Table 9A- Uniform Building Code, shall be classified as Getup H1 or H2 occupancies. M. Any such areas in item #2 (above) shall be constructed in accordance with Chapter 9-U.B.C., and shall be separated from other areas of the building by two-hour occupancy separations. (Table S-B U.B.C.) N. Areas described in item #2 (above) shall be located on the ground floor. (U.B.C. - Table S-D) hater Supply 0. Required fire flow is 3,500 gpm. P. Provide new mmicipal hydrant on the west side of Camden Avenue, 25 ft. south of the S.P. RR right of way. Q. Provide three (3) on-site hydrants (M~,micipal style) at locations shown on the site plan (C.F.D. office copy) Fire Protection R. Provide a fully supervised sprinkler system to be monitored by a central station alarm company. System shall be designed in accordance with NFPA Standard 13; Ordinary Hazard (Group 3) in all areas and Extra Hazard (Group 2) in areas using flammable/combustible liquids. S. Sprinkler system shall include 1~ inch hose outlets for Campbell Fire Dept. use. Hazardous Materials _ T. All storage, handling andbell Hazardous 1-iaterialsaRrdinancec(CfM.C:tTitlel7) ments of the City of Came and the Uniform Fire Code. U. All necessary permits required in item #1 (above) shall be obtained prior to building occupancy. 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. 'ODNDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 83-18 APPLICATION OF:74~ 749 CAT'mEN AVE ' SITE ADDRESS: PAC3E 4 BUILDING T~PARTT~hT y. Roof covering (not shown) shall be fire retardant. (Sect. 1704) ptJ$LI C i~ARICS DEPAR'ITtET'T W, Process and file a parcel map to combine the two lots. X. Pay storm drainage fee. Y. Obtain an excavation permit for all work in the public right-of-way. Z. Provide right-of-way on Camden Avenue and titi'inchester Blvd. for street purposes as rec{uired by City Engineer. AA. Construct street improvements on Camden Avenue, Winchestelred d., and within revised Camden-Winchester intersection as requ' by City Pngineer. BB. Participate in the amotmt of 50~ of traffic signal and drop gate installation in Camden-Winchester intersection. PLa\'?~'I'~G I~PAR'IT~'~4T CC. Prior to occupancy, owner will provide floor plans illustrating area of research and development and manufacturing uses for approval of the Planning Director.