Loading...
PC Min 03/27/1984PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MARCH 27, 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 (8:35 p.m.), Perrine, Campos, Fairbanks,. Dickson; Planning Director Arthur A. Kee, Principal Planner Philip J. Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill. Helms, City Attorney J. Robert Dempster,. Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Commissioners Meyer and Howard.. CONA9[JNICATIONS Mr. Kee reported that communications received pertained. to specific items on the agenda. and would be discussed at-that time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -March 13, 19.84 It was moved by Commissioner Campos, and seconded by Commdssioner Fairbanks, that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of March 13, 1984 as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 83-16 Continued application of D'1r. R. L. Ferguson, on behalf Economy Lumber of Economy Lumber, for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a sales building on pro- perty known as 720 Camden Avenue in an M-2-s (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District. In order to provide the applicant an opportunity to study possible access proposals, Staff is recommending that this item be continued as requested by the applicant. It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that S 83-16 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. ~~~ S 84-05 Application of Mr. Jim Dumas, on behalf of Vanderson Dumas, J. Construction Inc., for approval of plans and eleva- tions to allow the construction of an office build- - ing on property known as 476 to 486 E. Campbell Ave- nue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. -2- Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was before the Site and Archi- tectural Review Committee, and the applicant is in agreement with the Committee's recoimnendation for a continuance in order that concerns ex- pressed in the Staff Report might be addressed. It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Co1-Qnissioner Campos, that S 84-05 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. ~ ~ ~ S 84-06 Application of Spiering Construction Co., Inc., for Spiering Construction approval of plans .and elevations to allow the con- struction of an industrial building on property known as 841 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was discussed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. A change in the proposed color was discussed, which the applicant was agreeable to, as well as brief discussion regarding 3 parking spaces at the rear of the project. The applicant has indicated his willingness to address these concerns, and the Site Committee is recommending approval, subject to revised plans being submitted for approval of the Planning Director. It was moved by Commissioner Perrine, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that S 84-06 be approved subject to conditions as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet, with a change to Condition 1, which is to read "revised- plans to be approved by the Planning Director...". I~btion carried unanimously. ~ s~ s~ S 83-20 Application of Mr. Frank Oley, on behalf of U-Haul, U-Haul Inc., for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a 4500 sq.ft, addition to an existing rental facility on property known as 1266 Whiteoaks Rd. Commissioner Perrine reported that. this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The Comanittee shaxed Staff's concern re- garding the proposed parking layout; and, the applicant's were willing to accept the Committee's recommendation for a continuance in order that these concerns might be addressed. It was moved. by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that S 83-20 be continued to the .Planning Commission meeting of April 24, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. ~e~~ PUBLiC HEARINGS ZC 83-i1 Continued public hearing to consider the application - Oliv+er, R. of Mr. Robert Oliver, on behalf of Mark Thama:s Co. , -Inc., for a zone change from M-1-S (Light Industrial) to a C-PD (Condominium-Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District; and, approval of plans, elevations, -3- and development schedule to allow the construction of an industrial condominium project on property known as 70 Cristich Lane. Mr. Kee reviewed this application for the Commission., noting that this pro- perty is located on Cristich Lane, which is currently being considered as additional access for a proposed industrial project on the Winchester Drive- In site. Although the Cristich Lane access is in the preliminary planning stages, it is possible that improvements to this street could affect the parking for this project which is proposed to back out onto Cristich Lane. Staff is recommending a continuance so that further study of Cristich Lane can be undertaken. This. recommendation is contingent upon the concurrence of the applicant. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak for. or against this application. No one wishing to speak at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Perrine, that ZC 83-11 be continued to the meet- ing of June 2b, 1984 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried tuianimously. Responding to general questions of the Commission, Mr. Kee indicated that this application is`for the subdivision of this property to allow condo- minium ~,ndustrial space, in that the site plan for this project has already been approved by the Commission under proceedings known as S 83-11. ~~~ EIR 84-O1 Continued public hearing to consider the. Draft EIR Rodrigues, K, for a proposed research and development complex on property known as 743 ~, 749 Camden Avenue in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District.. Mr. Kee reviewed this proposal to redevelop the site of the Campbell Lumber Yard with two new office/research and development buildings with a total. floor area of approximately 88,200 sq.ft. This proposal is consistent with the "Industrial" designation of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, as well as with the M-1-S zoning designation. The applicant and consultant were advised by the Staff that the EIR should focus mainly on off-site traffic circulation; impact of the project on nnuli- cipal services; and potential hazardous chemical storage and processing. The revised draft EIR which is before the Commission at this time satisfies the Staff's requirements in terms of both the original scope of work and the revisions necessary to address specific concerns. Additionally, mitigation measures to minimize the impact of this development have been included as conditions of approval for the project (S 83-18). Mr. Kee concluded. that Staff is recommending that the Commission consider the Draft EIR and make any changes or additions as deemed necessary; and, that the Commission certify the EIR as complete and that mitigating measures con- - tamed therein be used in reviewing the development plans for the proposed project. -4- Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak far or against this item.. Mr. Ken Rodrigues, applicant, appeared before the Commission to answer any questions. Chairman Dickson questioned the information presented regarding the jobs/ housing balance. Mr. Mark Papineau, representing Ea.rthMetrics (preparers of the EIR), explain- ed that the information contained in the report was from ABAG. This source has indicated that there will- be a surplus of jobs relative to housing in this area in the future. Mr. .Kee further explained that Staff has met with representatives of ABAG, and their data is based on the current approved densities on the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Crnrnnissioner Campos expressed concern about traffic in this area, and in particular the intersection of Camden and Winchester. Mr. Helms reported that Staff is proposing that the intersection. of Camden and Winchester be signalized, which would include a drop gate for the railroad .tracks. I,t is anticipated that the installation of such a signal will hinder traffic on Winchester Blvd., however it will provide safer traffic movements for vehicles coming off Camden Avenue. Commissioner Campos asked if traffic will be encouraged, by design, to flow onto San Tomas Expressway. Mr. Helms indicated that the proposed mitigations would provide traffic the opportunity to fully utilize the provided intersections, and it is felt that with the signalzation the traffic movements will be easier .handled. Ulti- mately, the City will be looking at an interconnect series on Winchester Blvd. Mr. Helms noted that Staff has taken the approach that service to the residents may have to be at the inconvenience of through-commute traffic. Commissioner Fairbanks asked Mr.-Helms if Staff is in agreement with the statistics presented in Figure 4, Page 3-3, Project Trip Distribution; and, she indicated her concern with the 60% up and down Camden Avenue. Mr. Helms responded that Staff is not in agreement with this data, in that this figure was predicated .upon no signal installation at this intersection. Staff is recommending signalization, and this distribution indicated in Figure 4 would not apply with a signal. Staff's estimation of the traffic distribution with the proposed mitigation measures, a signal at Camden and Winchester, would indicate the movement to be insignificant (perhaps 10%). Mr. Papineau stated his .agreement with Mr. Hems, noting that :the figures indicated in the EIR were based on the assumption that there would not be a traffic signal at Camden and Winchester. In order to provide relief to residents, the proposal for the drop-gate and signal were initiated. -5- Corrnnissioner Campos .asked if the road surfaces in this area would be improved as a result of this project.. Nfr. Helms responded that road surfaces in front of this site would be improved, and Staff is working toward activating some of the old LID's for this area to eventually repair the streets. Nh~s. Dorothy Shattuck, 391 California Street, stated her concern regarding traffic movements in the area,. specifically vehicles coming out of the Campbell Plaza Shopping Center down Winchester encountering vehicles leav- ing the proposed development. She-asked if the EIR would show this inter- section more clearly, and if there is any way of controlling traffic going around the "S" curve on Camden Avenue. N1r. Bruce Reid, 1509 Walnut Drive, expressed his concern that the EIR spoke for increased housing densities in light of the recent struggles of area residents to decrease densities. Additionally, Ntr. Reid noted his concern regarding traffic in the area and the effect this project would have on the intersection of Winchester and Hacienda. Mr, Reid felt that the EIR was not sufficient and should be redone. NIr. Kee further explained the jobs/housing statistics as derived from ABAG, noting that ABAG has asked other cities in the Bay Area to increase den- sities and provide more housing. He noted that Campbell provides mere housing than some of the other cities in Santa Clara County.: NIr. Papineau stated that the intersection of Winchester and Hacienda was not .___ examined in the EIR, however, the report did examine other intersections in the area that would be affected to a greater extent. He indicated that the intersections of Winchester/Camden, Winchester/Budd, and Camden/Curtner were reviewed in the presented report. Nir. Helms noted that trip distribution studies indi.ca.te that approximately l00 of the trips generated from the proposed project would pass through, the Hacienda/Winchester intersection. The bulk of the traffic exiting this project would go onto Winchester, and go either north or south. The bulk of traffic going south on Winchester would be going onto Camden or San Tomas Expressway. There being no one else wishing to speak at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Perrine, that the public hearing for EIR 84-01 be closed. Notion carried unanimously. Commissioner Kasolas entered the chambers at 8:35 p.m. Discussion Commissioner Fairbanks noted that she had difficulty with both of the Staff recommendations, in that she was nat.-really pleased with the EIR as it addresses traffic. Commissioner Fairbanks continued that :she would like to see more information, either from Staff or from the EIR consultants, regard- ing the proposed signalization. She indicated that she was not convinced that something else might need to be done, nor that the intersection of Winchester/Hacienda would not be impacted. Additionally,: she expressed her concern regarding the mitigating measures with regard to housing and increased densities. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she would be willing to go for- ward on this report, if it could be qualified to address these concerns. -6- Commissioner Campos expressed his concern about the traffic, stating that he did not think the Commission has an overall picture of the traffic in this area and he would like to see a more thorough examination of all the intersections along Winchester Blvd., from Lark Avenue to Campbell Avenue. NIr. Helms noted that the City is experiencing large wlumes of traffic along Winchester and is going to continue experiencing these volumes on all arterials; however, it is .important. that the City take the stand that they provide traffic movement to the residents. The bulk of traffic coming through Campbell is commute traffic, and this is a situation that is going to have to be dealt with by the-City on a case-by-case basis. Commissioner Campos asked if the City might require the developer to improve Camden Avenue to Curtner to encourage people to use Camden instead of Win- chester. N1r. Kee noted. that the EIR will not be going on to the Council in that this is a Site application only. Commissioner Perrine stated that he did not believe the information regarding housing related to this project. A lot of concerns expressed about-the traf- fic are far beyond the scope of the project under discussion at this time. Chairman Dickson asked for an estimate of increase in traffic in the City by the addition of this project. D4ot ion After further discussion by the Commission, it was moved by .Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that the public hearing on EIR 84-01 be re-opened in order that further information might be provided. Motion carried with a wte of 4-0-2-1, with Commissioner Kasolas abstaining due to not being present during the entire discussion. Notion It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks,.. and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that EIR 84-01 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 1984 with the applicant's concurrence, in order that further information might be provided in the following areas: (1) the question of housing densities; (2) the difference in traffic movements with and without signalization at Camden/Winchester; (3) the percentage of cars generated from this project site; (4) consideration of traffic movements with signal by going south on Camden to Simnyoaks and onto the the interchange to Hwy. 17; (5) consideration of traffic movements with suggested signali- zation out to Winchester south trying to get onto the expressway; {6) consideration of traffic. movements going south on Winchester to Hacienda. intersection; (7) consideration of traffie movements going south on Winchester to Lark Avenue; (8) impact of traffic beyond Camden/Winchester; (9) alternatives to encourage people to exit towards 'Sunnyoaks. It was the consensus of the Commission that this additional information be presented in summary format to limit discussion to these areas of concern. Motion carried unanimously. - 7- Commissioner Kasolas noted that he would like the Commission to be reminded i that. a project across the street from the proposal was approved that. was ' smaller than this project with more ingress/egress problems, and this was done with traffic reports that were not as in-depth as the one presented this evening. ~~~ The Commission recessed at 9:05 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:18 p.m. * ~ ~ ARCHITECT[IRAL APPROVALS S 83-18 Continued application of Mr. Kenneth Rodrigues for LRS Associates approval of plans and elevations to allow the con- struction of a research and development complex on property-known as 743 ~ 749 Camden Avenue in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was discussed at length by the Site and Architectural Review Conm~-i.ttee, and the Committee would be recommending approval; however, in light of the continuance on the EIR portion of this project., the Site Committee is recommending continuance of S 83-18 to the same meeting as EIR 84-01. Commissioner Fairbanks indicated that in reviewing the site approval of this proposal, .she would be particularly concerned with the roofing materials, equipment that would be screened on the roof and the type of screening proposed, and landscaping of the project. It was moved by Commissioner Perrine, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that S 83-18 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 10, 1984. Notion carried unanimously. ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARINGS HPB 84-01 Public hearing to consider possible historic designa- Soutas, M. tion of property known as 151 N. Central Avenue. Mr. Kee reviewed this item, noting that the designation of an historic land- mark requires the combination of a particular zoning district with an his- toric overlay zoning designation. Section 21.41.110(k) of the C.M.C.. in part indicates .that the Commission. shall consider the conformance or lack of conformance of a proposed designation with the purposes of the Historic Preservation Chapter and the City's General Plan. At it's meeting of February 22, 1984 the Historic Preservation Board adopted a resolution re- . commending designation of this structure and property as an historic 1and- .mark. The-subject. property is currently developed with. an older single- family structure which is in excellent condition for its age. The owner - recently received approval of a conditional use permit to allow the con- version of this structure to an office use. -8- Mr. Kee continued that Staff is of the opinion that. the designation of this _ property as an historic landmark would be consistent with the purposes of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and the City's. General Plan. The pro- posed designation does not interfere with the proposed office use on the property and the property is a good candidate for designation as a local landmark. Commissioner Kasolas asked what the effect of putting an historic overlay on the property. would be, as well as what the advantage of this overlay would be to the property owner/applicant. Mr. Kee stated that the property would remain in its present state if such an overlay was adopted, and it is his understanding that there may be tax advantages for the applicant. Commissioner Kasolas asked. what the difference is between this ~roperty~and another property before the Commission some time ago (35 ~ 45 S. First St.). He added that he would like to see more information as to why this property might be considered historic. Chairman Dickson stated that the Commission could be over-stepping its bounds in asking for this information, in that a recommendation for the overlay has already been made by the Historic Preservation Board. Commissioner Campos felt that perhaps the application for historic overlay should have been considered by the City Council prior to the Commission - approving the conditional use permit allowing the conversion of the residence to an office. Chairman Dickson opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Motion No one wishing to speak at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that the public hearing for HPB 84-01 be closed.. Motion carried unanimously. Motion It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve this zone change. Motion dies for lack of a second. Mot ion It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas that this application be denied. motion dies for lack of a second. Motion It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Coriar-ssioner Fairbanks, that HPB 84-01 be continued to a meeting date to be determined by Staff, in order that a full Commission be present; and, in order that additional infor- mation be provided as to why this property fits into the categories as indi- cated in Resolution No. 13 of the Historic Preservation Board. Motion carried unanimously. -9- Discussion of Notion for Continuance - Chairman Dickson again noted that he had serious concerns about continuing this item in that he felt the Commission was over-stepping its bounds in that the Commission's charter is to determine if this proposal is in con- formance with the General Plan.. ~~~ UP 84-03 Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Sanchez, X. 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 Development/ Medium Density Residential) Zoning. District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this item. was before the Site and Archi- tecturai Review Committee, and the Committee is recommending continuance in order that concerns raised by the Public Works Staff on ingress/egress might be addressed. Chairman Dickson opened. the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. No one wishing to-speak at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded. by Commissioner Perrine, that UP 84-03 be continued to the Plan- ning Commission meeting of April 10, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. - ~~~ MISCELLANFrOUS SA 84-05 Continued application of Winston Tire Cc~anpany for a Winston Tire sign permit to allow an additional 48 sq.ft. sign on property known as 1800 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 applicant hascontacted Staff and re- quested a two week .continuance. Chairman Dickson noted that perhaps there should be a policy limiting the number of continuances in situations of this type. It was moved by Commissioner Ka.solas, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that SA 84-OS a continued to the meeting of April 10, 1984 at the request of the applicant. Motion carried unanimously. ~~~ - R 84-04 Request of Daiwa House Corp. for modification to Daiwa House approved plans and reinstatement of approval for construction of 30 conciominium units on property known as 440 $.456 Llewellyn Avenue (ZC 83-04 ~ TS 83-05). -10- Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was before the Site and Archi- tectural Review Committee. Discussion included concerns expressed in the Staff Report, however there. are still some things that have not been re- solved to the satisfaction of the Cor-miittee. The.applicanthas stated that he will be submitting revised plans addressing.. these concerns, specifically regarding the swimming pool, ,open space, and deck areas. Therefore, the Committee is recommending a continuance with the consent of the applicant . It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Perrine, that R 84-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meting of April 10, 1984. Motion carried unanimously. *~~ SA 84-I1 Referral of sign request for Seaborn Development, Seaborn Development Inc., for a proposed wall sign on property known as 1300 Whiteoaks Road in an M-1-S (Light Indus- trial) Zoning District. Commissioner Perrine reported that this rec{uest was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. This request is before the Commission because it does have the possibility of being oriented toward the freeway. The position chosen-for the sign seems to provide the most logical spot for visibility to Whiteoaks Road, which parallels the freeway, and the Committee is, therefore, recommending approval. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve SA 84-11. Motion carried unanimously. ~~~ NNI 84-01 Continued request of Mr. James Harp, on behalf of Harp, J. ASCOM Inc.,for approval of two satellite antennas on property located at 201 E. Hamilton Avenue in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Mx. Kee reviewed this proposal..,.,-noting that it was. continued .from the meeting of February 28, 1984 so that the applicant could submit a plan making the satellite dishes less visible from Hamilton Avenue, and so that any addi- tional information might be provided. As of this date, the applicant has not submitted any proposal to make the dishes less visible from Hamilton Avenue; and, Staff's position remains as a recommendation for denial based on .reasons as listed in the Staff Report. Additionally,. Mr. Kee called the Commission's attention to the last paragraph in the Staff Report. This paragraph was added to the report in error. The correct information would indicate a petition of approxunately 348 signatures and several letters from surrounding businesses stating that the dishes are not offensive and do not bother the aesthetic senses. This information was presented to the Commission at the meeting of February 28,-1'984. In response to a question regarding the visibility of the antennas from Hamilton .Avenue, Mr. Kee indicated that the zoning ordinance does specify that all roof-mounted ec{u.ipment shall be screened in commercial zoning districts. -11- Mr. James Hasp., applicant, stated that he is trying to make the antennas ~ as least visible as possible. He continued that these antennas are be- _~ coming a real consumer-grade piece of electronics, and he did not consi- der them as roof-mounted equipment. Mr. Harp asked what is meant by the term "incompatible with the surrounding area." Commissioner Kasolas indicated that it might be more appropriate to continue this item until after consideration of the proposed ordinance. which will be presented to the Commission on April 10, 1984. Mr, Harp noted that he has drafted an ordinance for use in residential areas which the Co~runission might wish to consider, (attached hereto). He continued that he had no objection to a continuance; and,also had no objection to making the antennas less visible, but how much less visible. Mr. Harp stated that he .calculated the .screening would have to be ap roximately 8-1/Z' tall on one side of the antennas (directly in front . Chairman Dickson stated that he would like to see-some references and general remarks made by specific persons relating to these antennas and their use.. He';comtinued that he felt these. antennas were roof- mounted equipment, and when the Commission starts looking at the residential areas with reference to the use of these antennas they would want to consider screening of some type. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that MM 84-O1 be continued to the Planning .Commission .meeting of May 8, 1984, at the request of the applicant, and in order that the proposed. ordinance may be discussed. Motion carried unanimously. ~~~ OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY CONMISSIONEftS Chairman Dickson noted that he had attended a meeting regarding Route 85, which turned out to be a meeting of planning officials to take independent action on this type of transportation. He stated that he will not be attending this type of meeting again, in that he did not wish to be in- volved in independent movements regarding Route. 85, and would only re- present the City's stand on this issue. ~~~ ADJOURNNN~N'T It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m. APPROVED: J. DuWa a Dickson ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee irman - ecretary REOORDED: Linda A. Dermis co ing cre tart' COND 1 T IONS OE APPROVAL $ 84-06 APPL 1 CAT ION of : Spiering Construction Co. P.C. M!'G.: 3/27/84 Page 1 ~ _ ~ Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Plannin Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor, wit in - 30 days of the Planning- Commission approval. n/a Revised elevations and/or site plan to be approved by the Site & Architectural Review Committee and/or the Planning CommissioT n 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 icat on or a 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 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 either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the _~ amount of $3,000- to insure landscaping, fencing., and striping of parking areas- w tFiin 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. 6 Rpplicant 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: ..square feet of office use, 8,975 square feet off speculative industrial use, and square feet of warehouse use, prior to issuance off' 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 OF .APPROVAL: S 84-06 APPLICATION OF: Spiering Construction Co. 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. - 10 A11 parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Section 21.5D of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concre a curbs or bumper ,guards. 11 Underground utilities to be .provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. 12 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. ~_ 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). 14 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 Ci y 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. 15 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. 16 Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City re- quirements for the fiandicapped. 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. All existing .structures shall be kept secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolish- ed or removed from the property. Sect. 11.201 6 11.41.4, 1979 Ed. Uniform Fire Code CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: S 84-06 APPLICATION.OF: Spiering Construction Co. Page 3 PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR:IT'IDVT 17. Obtain an excavation permit, pay fees and post surety for a~ work in the public right of way. FIRE DEPARTMENT 18. Building construction meets requirements for B-2 occupancy. Hazardous occupancies such as auto repair or woodworking will require additional construction requirements and prior approval from this department. 19. Provide (1) on-site municipal fire hydrant of 1,500 gpm capacity.. 20. Provide ZA:lOBC fire extinguishers in each unit.. 2 L Relocate trash enclosure to provide clear access for refuse trucks. BUILDING DEPAR'IN®VT 22. .Provide minimiun 30" parapet wall at south property line. (Sect. 1709) 23. Roof covering shall be fire retardant. (Sect. 1704,3203) The applicant is notifief Camtbellswhichapertainltowthisadevelolpmentland~are not Ordinances of the City o p fierein specified. AS!~OM Applied Satellite Communications lnc. of 7NE A-~'E-J~.1A ORDINANCE I ~~c .~ a-z ~e~~~ ~~G'?xv~0-~26n ~~ ~ir.G~ ~" ~a~-~y , ~ ~°~-~¢~ An Ordinance Pertaining to Regulation of "Satellite Television Antennas" THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section i. A satellite television antenna is an antenna the purpose of which is to receive television or radio signals from orbiting satellites. Section 2. Accessory buildings and. structures: a. In all zoning districts private non-commercial radio television antennas and towers are permitted as accessory structures. b. In all zoning districts,. ground-mounted and roof- mounted satellite television antennas are permitted as accessory structures. Section 3. Roof-mounted satellite television antennas: Shall not extend more than fBgt (1'A,) feet above the height limit established for the zone in which the structure is located. Exceptions to these height requirements may be made by the approval of a special use permit under Section of this ordinance. Section 4.. Ground-mounted satellite television antennas: a. In residential zones, ground-mounted satellite television antennas shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height above the ground, unless a Special Use Permit is approved under Section of this ordinance. In all other zones, ground-mounted satellite television antennas shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height above the ground unless a Special Use Permit. is approved. b. Ground-mounted satellite television antennas shall be permitted in any required rear, side or front yard provided such structures are located at least ~ YZ THE _..._=--~iiilt from the nearest part of the main building on the same lot and at least five (5) feet from any rear, front or side property line. ~'HE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of State of , on the day of 19 , at a regular meeting of said Board, duly and regularly convened on said day, by the following roll call vote. *This ordinance is derived, with modifications, from a California county ordinance passed in •1483. D-~rr~~