PC Min 02/28/1984PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
7:30 P.M. MINUTES
FEBRUARY 28, 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,
75 N. Central Avenue, Campbell, California.
ROLL CALL
Present Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Meyer, Fairbanks,
Howard; 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 : ('.ariPos, Dickson
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 14, 1984 It was rroved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded
by Commissioner Perrine, that the minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting of February 14, 1984
be approved as submitted. Notion carried 4-0-2-1,
with Commissioner Meyer abstaining due to absence.
OON1D'IUNICATIONS
Mr. Kee noted that all communications received pertained to specific items on
the agenda and would be considered at that time.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS
S 84-01 Continued application of Mr. Mike Steffey, on behalf
Steffey, M. of Spoons Restaurants, for approval of plans and ele-
nations to renovate an existing restaurant (formerly
Flagg's and Jolly Roger) on property known as 1555 S.
Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
District.
Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural
Review Committee and, after discussion which included the landscaping plans which
are to come back to the Committee, approval is being recommended.
Mr. Kee noted that Staff is in concurrence with this recommendation.
It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer, that
the Planning Commission approve S 84-01, subject to conditions as listed in the
Staff Comment Sheet. Notion carried unanimously.
~~*
-2-
S 83-18 Application of Mr. Kenneth Rodrigues for approval of
LRS Associates plans and elevations to allow the construction of a ,-
research and development complex on property. known
as 743 $ 749 Camden Avenue in an M-1-S (Light In-
dustrial) Zoning District.
Mr. Kee stated that Staff is recommending a continuance of this item, with the
applicant's concurrence, to the meeting of March 27, 1984,
It was moved by Commissioner Meyer, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks,
that S 83-18 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 1984.
Motion carried unanimously.
***
1~4 84-03 Application of Mr. David Ridley for a minor modifica.-
Ridley, D, tiara to approved plans to allow an office addition of
approximately 370 sq.ft. to an existing office build-
ing on property known as 441 N. Central Avenue in a
C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District.
Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was before-the Site. and Architectural
Review Committee, and the Committee is recommending approval.
After brief discussion regarding parking ratios for this project, it was moved
by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Perrine, that NM 84-03
be approved, subject to conditions as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet.
I~btion carried unanimously,
~~~
S 84-04 Application of D'fr. Steve Zweig, on behalf of Quadrex
Zweig, S. Corporation, for approval of plans and elevations to
allow the addition of a 3,000 sq.ft. storage build-
ing on property known as 1700 Dell Avenue in a CM:B-40
(Controlled Manufacturing [40,000 sq.ft. minimum lot
size]) Zoning District.
Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was before the Site and Archi-
tectural Review.Committee. The Committee is recommmending approval subject to
the added condition that revised floor plans be submitted to the Planning
Department addressing the number of square feet being used for office space.
Mr. Kee indicated that Staff is in concurrence with this recommendation.
It was moved by Comunissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks,
that S 84-04 be approved, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Corr~nent
Sheet as well as the added condition that revised floor plans shall be sub-
mitted to the Planning Department indicating square footage being used as
office space. bbtion carried unanimously.
~~~
-3-
S 84-03 Application of Mr. Neil Hamm for approval of plans
~, N, and elevations to allow the construction of a re-
search and development building on property known
as 271 E. Hacienda Avenue in a GN1:B-Z0 (Controlled
Manufacturing [20, 000 sq. ft. minirrnmt lot size] )
Zoning District.
Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was before the .Site and Archi-
tectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending approval subject
to conditions as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet and redlining of the
presented plans.
Commissioner Fairbanks expressed her concern that this development be com-
patible with the surrounding developments, in that this was a prominent
entrance into the industrial park. Additionally, she expressed concern
regarding the traffic movements at this intersection.
N1r. Helms indicated that improvements for this intersection are in the
final design stages, and the redesign of this area will address the con-
cerns expressed by Commissioner Fairbanks.
Commissioner Kasolas asked if the footprint of the building was in line
with other development in this area, and expressed his concern about the
parking rec{uirements for manufacturing uses, noting that there appears to
be a problem along Dell Avenue.
Nir. Kee indicated that the footprint of this building is nit unusual and
is about as large as allowable. Additionally, regarding the parking,. the
ratio for this proposal is more stringent that previous development for
manufacturing in that the ratios have changed under the recently revised
parking ordinance. In response to concerns expressed about the compat-
ibility of the proposed building, NIr. Kee indicated that the Architectural
Advisor has noted that the proposal would not have a negative effect in
.his opinion.
Commissioner Fairbanks stated she would like to see this item continued in
order that some of her concerns might be addressed.
Commissioner Kasolas noted his agreement with Commissioner Fairbanks.
It was moved by Commissioner Meyer, and seconded by Commissioner Perrine,
that S 84-03 be approved, subject to conditions listed in ..the Staff Comment
Sheet and redlining of presented plans. Notion fails with a vote of 2-3-2,
with Commissioners Howard, Fairbanks, and Kasolas voting "no".
It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas,
that S 84-03 be continued to the meeting of March 13, 1984 in order that
Staff might come back with information regarding building heights, colors,
and compatibility with the surrounding developments. Motion carried unani-
mously.
*~~
-4-
NM 84-04 Request of Ntr. Carl Abbott for modification of plans
Abbott, C. to allow the placement of a storage container on pro-
perty known as 2200 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S
(General Commercial) Zoning District.
Commissioner Perrine reported that this application was considered by the Site
and Architectural Review Committee. The subject container is screened, does
not take up designated parking spaces, and is painted in a color similar to
the building. The Corrnnittee is recommending approval for one year, subject
to removal at the end of this time.
It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks,
that MM 84-04 be approved subject to conditions listed in the Staff Comment
Sheet for a period of one year.. Motion carried unanimously.
***
NM 84-05 Application of Nfr. Herman Hermle, on behalf of Summit
Summit Construction Construction Co., for modification to allow placement
of a fence on property known as 355 D4cGlincey Lane in
an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District.
Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee.. The Committee is recommending approval.
It was moved by Commissioner Meyer, and seconded by Commissioner Perrine,
that NM 84-OS be approved, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Comment
Sheet. Notion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
V 84-01 Public hearing to consider the application of Nfr.
Barfield, L. Lorin Barfield for a 2' variance to the required
5' sideyard setback requirement to allow an addi-
tion to a house on property known as 1209 Abbott
Avenue in an Rl-9 (Single Family Residential, 9,000
sq.ft. minimum lot size) Zoning District.
N1r. Stafford reviewed this application for the Commission, indicating that
Staff is of the opinion that a hardships exists due to the unique configura-
tion of the property.
Vice-Chairman Howard opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the
audience to speak for or against. this item.
Nir. Lorin Barfield, applicant, appeared before the O~mnission to answer any
questions.
No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Meyer, and seconded ___.
by Commissioner Fairbanks, that the public hearing be closed.. Motion carried
unanimously.
-5-
RTSOLiTTI~1 N0. 2264
- It was moved by Coinnissiazer Fairbanks, and seconded
by Connnissioner Meyer, that the Plarming Commission
adopt Resolution No. 2264 approving V 84-O1 with the
- following findings: (1) The applicant demonstrated
a hardship due to the unusual lot configuration;
(2) the hardship is not self-imposed; and (3) the
proposed variance will not be harmful to the community.
Motion carried with the following roll call wte:
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Meyer, Howard, Fairbanks
NOES: Coirrnissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: Campos, Dickson
Discussion
Commissioner Fairbanks noted that the configuration of this property was due,
in part,to a public agency taking some of the property.
~*~
EIR 84-01 Public hearing to consider the Draft EIR for a pro-
Rodrigues, K. posed research and development complex on property
knoUm as 743 Camden Avenue in an r7~1=S (Light In-
dustrial) Zoning District.
Mr. Stafford reported that the administrative draft of this Environmental
Impact Report has been reviewed by Staff, and as part of this review, the
consultant has been requested to make a revision as it pertains to the need
- for a traffic signal at the intersection of Camden Avenue and Winchester
Boulevard. Additionally, both the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and
the Public Utilities Commission have indicated concerns over the inter-
section of Camden Avenue and Winchester Boulevard since there is an existing
at-grade crossing of the railroad track.
Vice-Chairman Howard opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the
audience to speak for or against this item.
Tb one wishing to speak at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks,
and seconded by Commissioner Meyer, that EIR 84-01 be continued to the meet-
ing of NFarch 27, 1984. Nation carried unanimously.
Discussion
Commissioner Fairbanks noted that she would like to see any development in
this area address landscaping along the Winchester frontage to improve the
aesthetics of this area.
~~*
r~ISCELLANEOUs
SA 84-02 Continued application of Arnold Pierce Association
Koral, G. for approval of anoff-premise free-standing sign
on property known as 1405 Camden Avenue in a C-1-S
(Neighborhood Comanercial) Zoning District.
-6-
Ntr. Stafford reviewed this application, stating that Staff is of the opinion
that the townhome project being advertised by this sign is not so located as
to warrant anoff-premise sign. Additionally, the signing presently on the
site which identifies the businesses there exceeds that permitted by the
current standards. The provision of anoff-premise sign on this site would
add to the existing signing and would establish an undesirable precedent.
Nh~. Robert Cupps, Trilex Association, stated that this sign is a very viable
part of their marketing program. He noted that the company would adhere to
the conditions imposed by the Planning Department and Commission and would be
willing to put up a cash bond to insure the removal of the sign at the end
of the approved period. Additionally, Mr. Cupps stated that this is the only
off-site sign that the development will have.
After brief discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded
by Commissioner Kasolas, that SA 84-02 be approved subject to the following
conditions: (1) Sign height not more than 8'; (2) Approval of sigp for
6 months from this date; (3) Applicant to secure any necessary building
permits; and (4) Applicant to provide $200 cash bond to guarantee the
reirnval of the sign at the end of the 6 month period (August 28, 1984).
Notion carried with a vote of 3-2-2, with Commissioners Meyer and Perrine
voting "no".
Commissioner Kasolas commented that he would hope that this type of situation
would not come up too frequently.
~ ~
SA 84-05 Application of 19inston Tire Company for a sign per-
Winston Tire Co. mit 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 Perrine reported that this item was considered by the Site and
Architectural Review Committee. The Committee is recommending denial due to
the concerns expressed by Staff : (1) the building is adequately identified
with the free-standing sign and two wall signs; and (2) the new wall sign is
in black lettering while the other wall signs consist of red lettering.- Addi-
tionally, under the Sign Ordinance this business would be allowed two .signs
not exceeding 50 sq.ft. If this application is approved there would be four
signs for the business.
Ntr. Bob Quattlebaum, 900 W. Alameda Ave., Berkeley, representing Winston Tire
Company, stated that the sign was needed for the business in that they are
not known for brake alignment and this is a new phase of their business. He
indicated that he would like to work with Staff to see if the problem could
be solved.
Commissioner Kasolas asked if the sign was approved at the time the building
was approved; and is this a case of an existing legal sign being repainted.
Ntr. Kee indicated that there was a legal sign in the same place, but with ;~~
different wording. In that the sign ordinance has changed, Staff is having
difficulties in terms of the ordinance. Staff would have no objection to '_'
a continuance in order to work with the applicant.
-7-
Commissioner Kasolas asked if Staff's recommendation is based upon the fact
that the present sign ordinance is triggered by changing the copy of the
sign.
Mr. Kee indicated that this was correct.
Commissioner Kasolas continued that it is his understanding of the "grandfather
clause" in the present sign ordinance that if there was an existing sign that
was legal at the time of construction, then it would be allowed to be main-
tained and not have to be deleted. He continued that it appeared to him that
the applicant is addressing the same policy in that the only change is a change
in copy, and it would appeax that the applicant has a reasonable application.
Commissioner Fairbanks noted that to a certain extent she was in agreement with
Commissioner Kasolas; however her concern was that the applicant did not make
an application for approval prior to changing the copy.. She noted she would
like to see the item continued in order that the applicant could work with the
Staff to see if the signing for the business could be brought into alignment.
Commissioner Kasolas indicated that he thought the present policy is not to
cost the business ooirmunity a lot of money by making them take signs don.
It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas that SA 84-05 be approved. Notion died
for lack of a second.
It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer,
that SA 84-OS be continued, with the applicant's concurrence, to the meeting
of March 13, 1984 in order that the applicant might work with Staff to bring
the signing into conformance.. Moticm carried unanirrously.
~~~
Staff Report Staff report regarding satellite dishes.
Mr. Stafford reported that satellite dish antennas are used to receive a large
number of television channels and they are becoming increasingly popular. The
dishes must rotate to track the satellites. Staff foresees that more and more
will be placed within the City and therefore regulations-are needed to assure
their compatibility with the property on which they are placed and the adja-
cent properties. In general, it is Staff's opinion that they should be placed
in areas where they are not visible or screened as with other mechanical equip-
ment. However, they are more difficult to screen because they do rotate and
r-axst have a direct line of sight to the sky. Staff has contacted a niunber of
nearby cities to determine local regulations for satellite dishes. Of the 7
cities contacted, only Mountain View had detailed regulations dealing speci-
fically with the dishes. Nbuntain View's regulations dealt with such things
as location, height, and screening.
Commissioner Fairbanks asked why Staff is recommending that dishes not be
placed on roofs in residential areas, and if it would be possible to screen
these dishes if they were placed on the roof in this district. Additionally,
Commissioner Fairbanks noted that she did not find these dishes particularly
attractive in any size.
-8-
Mr. Stafford noted that Staff's position regarding the recommendation of
dishes smaller than one meter is because there are so many other types of
anteimas which are roof-mounted and visible, thereby making enforcement of
these small antennas difficult. The one meter size is recommended because
that is the standard adopted by Mountain View. Staff would recommend that
antennas larger than one meter not be placed on the roof for aesthic reasons.
In industrial districts, the code requires that all roof equipment must be
screened, and this would not apply to the residential areas.
Commissioner Perrine asked if requiring these dishes to be screened would be
fair and equal treatment with respect to other utilities.
Mr. Dempster indicated that the City requires most utilities to be screened
that are in the line of sight.
Mr. Kee noted that the code provides for review of single familyhomes at
Staff level, and that any roof-mounted equipment would bring concern in any
zone.
Mr. Jim Campbell, ASCOM Inc., explained that the size of the antenna is very
important for the quality of reception, and that the line of sight to the
satellite is critical. Sometimes~it is not possible to situate a dish because
of the layout of the property, and thatheight is necessary to clear other
obstructions and have direct contact with the satellite. Mr. Campbell noted
that the minimum dish size is 6', and that most antennas being put up in this
area are 8-10-12'.
Mr. Jim Harp, applicant, explained that dishes will. get smaller because of '
the more. powerful satellites that are Doming out. He continued that his
company would like to be able to install. the dishes when they are purchased,
without going through the approval process. They would like some guidelines.
Mr. Harp added that he is opposed to screening these antennas.
Commissioner Kasolas stated that he understands the applicant to say that it
is almost impossible to screen the dishes. His experience has been that these
dishes are very ugly and do nothing to enhance an area. If they cannot be
screened, this almost puts the company out of business within a residential
area, then the question arises of balance between opposing neighbors and some-
one who wants this type of antenna. With the average lot size in Campbell
leaving 2,000-4,000 sq.ft. for aback yard, where can the towers be built in
order to accommodate the dishes? If it is possible to put them in an area,
how much area is necessary in order to put screening around it?
Commissioner Perrine stated he would like Staff to continue checking with
other cities to see if they have policies which address this subject.
Commissioner Meyer indicated she was in agreement with Staff's recommendation,
however she would also like more information.
Commissioner Fairbanks asked if there would be a problem with noticing this
issue for public hearing before some of these questions were answered.
Mr. Kee indicated that this situation could be dealt with either way, however
he would think that the- Commission would prefer to have adequate information
prior to the public hearing.
-9-
Vice-Chairman Howard noted that he would like to see more information prior
- to setting a date for the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks,
- that a public hearing be noticed for an amendment to Chapter 21.42, Site and
Architectural Approval, to add regulations for satellite dish antennas.
Discussion on D~btion
Li ...n ~.~.rl ntn+na t1.n+ lzn, ~ 7_t tb r~_ /''r»rani rrznt~ cam ~ rnt
information on this issue. He felt that there were other cities, out of
this area, which might have restrictions dealing with this situation.
Vote on Motion
AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Perrine, Meyer, Fairbanks
NOES: Commissioners: Howard
ABSENT: Commissioners: Campos, Dickson
~~s~
MCI 84-O1 Continued request of Mr. Jams 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.
Commissioner Perrine reported that this item was before the Site and Archi-
tectural Review Committee. The Committee is coming before the Commission
~__ without a recorrnnendation, because it is felt that a recommendation cannot
}~c marip at thic time ~.ritl,n»t~itrthPr knr~iet~P.r~o'P.
Gomnissioner Fairbanks asked if there was provision in the ordinance to
provide for some type of screening in this instance, since it is in a
commercial zoning district.
Mr. Kee stated that screening is recuired on any type of equipment visible
from the street, and in Staff's opinion these antennas are very similar
to other types of utilities which are required to be screened. He noted
the change in policy regarding PG~E boxes as well as telephone transformers
because of the visual effect.
Vice-Chairman Howard noted that several letters have been received from sur-
rounding properties, as well as a petition containing approximately 348 signa-
tures, indicating "no objection" to these antennas (attached hereto).
Commissioner Kasolas noted he would like to hear from the applicant on this
matter. Perhaps there is not other way on this location that the equipment
can be used effectively.
Commissioner Perrine noted that it is his understanding that at the moment,
Staff does not have a problem with the location of this equipment, but
-10-
Mr. Jim Campbell, ASOOM Inc., stated that it is impossible to screen the
antennas. The antennas are not on the roof, but rather on the back side
of the building and cannot be seen unless you are really close--then they
are only visible from directly across the street. The equipment must be
high in order to get past the big tree which is on-site. The equipment
is on the back side of the building to limit vandalism, and because of
the location there is an excellent picture on the showroom sets. NEB.
Campbell continued that he has presented about 20 pages of signatures and
about 20 letters from people stating that they did not have any objections
to the antennas. He reiterated that the antennas are impossible to screen.
Mr. Campbell concluded that if more time is taken with this application,
he would only bring in more pages of signatures saying there was no ob-
jection.
Mr. Kee noted that Staff's recommendation was for a continuance in order
that something might be worked out; however, in that the applicant has
indicated that this is not possible, Staff would present the second part
of it's recommendation to the Commission--that recommendation being for
denial.
Commissioner Perrine stated that his understanding is that there is a
limited view of these antennas from Hamilton Avenue which would mean that
only limited screening would be needed. There does not seem to be a penalty
in continuing this item; however, the applicant seems to be anxious to push
it through. He continued that he is interested in reaching an equitable
agreement. In response to the circulation of petitions, Commissioner Perrine
felt that petitions could also be circulated asking about screening of these
antennas and an equal number of signatures could be obtained.
Commissioner Kasolas noted that the Commission must take each application
as it comes before them. What is before the Cmrnnission at this point is
roof-mounted equipment. He did not feel it was appropriate to anticipate
an ordinance, and that this application should be judged on it's own merits.
Commissioner Fairbanks asked Mr. Harp if he was in favor of a continuance.
Mr. Harp stated that he would be in favor of a continuance in order that
further information might be obtained by the Commission. Additionally,
he referred the Commission to a similar situation in the City of Carmel.
It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer,
that MM 84-01 be continued to the m~~Eting of March 27, 1984. Motion. carried
unanimou_~ly.
* ~
GTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP E2Y COMMISSION
Car_ggo Storage Containers: Mr. Stafford reported that the Commission may wish
to 3irect to to inc ude cargo storage conta~.ners in the public hearing re-
garding additions to Chapter 21.42 - Site and Architectural Approval - in order
to .give more strength to this current "polity".
-11-
It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Cor-snissioner Fairbanks,
i__ that a public hearing be noticed for an amendment to Chapter 21.42 -Site
and Architectural Approval - to include regulations pertaining to cargo
~__ storage containers . Notion carried unanirrously.
*~*
ADJOURNT'1IIV'I'
It was moved by Com¢nissioner Meyer, and seconded
by Commissioner Kasolas, that the meeting be ad-
j ourned .
The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
APPROVED: jVesle Howard
Vice- irman
ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee
Secretary
RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis
ecbr g ecretary