Loading...
PC Min 01/11/1983PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES JANUARY 11, 1983 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session at the regular meeting plan, the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 75 N. Central Avenue, Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Meyer, Fairbanks, Campos, Dickson, Kotowski; Planning Director Arthur A. Kee, Principal Planner Philip J. Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney J. Robert Dempster, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 14, 1982 It was moved by Commissioner Meyer, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 1982 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION N0. 2163 It was moved by Commissioner Campos, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2163 commending Commissioner Meyer for her role as Commissioner Chairman for the year 1982. Motion carried unanimously. Chairman Kotowski presented Commissioner Meyer with a plague and thanked her for all her work in the past year. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 82-13 Continued application of Mr. Neil Hamm for approval Hamm, N. of plans and elevations to allow the construction of an 18,212 sq.ft. industrial building on pro- perty known as 1520 Dell Avenue in a CM:B-40 (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District. Commissioner Fairbanks reported that this item had been discussed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and the Committee is recommending approval with the stipulation that Condition M be considered (pertaining to out- door storage} when the revised elevations are presented. Additionally, the applicant has addressed the concerns expressed by Staff at the previous meeting. __ ~'r• Kee noted that Staff is also recommending approval subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet, with Condition 1 stating that the applicant will submit revised plans to the Site and Architectural Review Committee. He added that the applicant has addressed the concern regarding the retention of the mature trees on the site. -2- It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the Planning Commission approve S 82-13 subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet (attached hereto and made a part of the minutes). Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). S 82-16 Continued application of Mr. Richard Pasek on Pasek, R. behalf of San Jose Forest Products, Inc., for approval of plans to establish a lumber storage yard on property known as 940 McGlincey Lane in a M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Fairbanks reported that this item had been considered by the Site and Afichitectural Review Committee this morning. The Committee is recommending approval, subject to the conditions which are addressed in the Staff Comment Sheet of November 23, 1982. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending approval subject to these conditions. Mr. Richard Pasek, 797 Dry Creek Road, stated that he has discussed the re- quired improvements with the property owner (Mrs. Hash), and she has stated she will not bear the cost of these improvements to the property. He con- tinued that he is in the process of vacating the property, but may be de- layed due to the weather, and would like additional time in which to move from the site. He stated that he would be willing to commit to this additional time in a letter satisfactory to the City Attorney. Mr. Kee stated that the Staff recommendation is for approval, subject to all improvements being installed within 45 days of the Commission's approval--or that the property be vacated by the applicant. If the Commission feels that additional time is warranted, Staff would be in agreement with the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Kee added that this item is before the Commission because this is a use that is in operation and has not been approved. Chairman Kotowski advised the applicant to keep the Planning Department informed of his intentions, in writing, regarding the number of days he plans to occupy the site. Mr. Pasek stated that he hopes to be finished constructing his new facility by April, the date listed in the Conditions of Approval as the deadline for moving from the property; however, a possibility exists of bad weather which would put the absolute deadline out of his control. It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas, that the Planning Commission approve Mr. Pasek's request for an additional 30 days to vacate the site (changing Condition 0 from April 12, 1983 to May 12, 1983); the applicant to submit a letter satisfactory to the City Attorney stating his intention to vacate the property, within~:l0 days from this meeting (by January 21, 1983); and, all conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet remaining valid should the applicant continue to use the property beyond May 12, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Pasek stated he would submit said letter within ten days. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it was his understanding that the applicant did not wish to continue with this application, but rather is requesting sufficient time in which to vacate the property. *** -3- PUBLIC HEARINGS EIR 82-02 Continued public hearing to consider the Draft Prometheus Environmental Impact Report which has been pre- Development pared for a proposed professional office project to be located at 920 East Hamilton Avenue. Mr. Stafford presented background in this E.I.R., noting that since the last meeting (December 14, 1982) additional information has been obtained regarding fire protection, the status of the Ainsley property, the developer's report regarding the impact of the development on the mobilehome park, responses to traffic questions raised by the City of San Jose, and a letter from the attorney representing the mobilehomeowner's association. At this point, Staff is re- commending that the Commission adopt a resolution recommhnding that the City Council certify this Draft E.I.R. as complete, pursuant to Section 15086(G) of the State E.I.R. Guidelines. Commissioner Fairbanks questioned the proposed phasing of the project in relation to the landscaping. Mr. Stafford noted that Phase I does provide for landscaping; however, Phase II provides for substantially more landscaping upon completion of the parking structure. Commissioner Kasolas asked for comments on the following concerns: ° What impact on the total community services is projected for this project. ° The impact on traffic in the immediate area (i.e. Campbell Avenue). ° The development schedule with regard to construction. ° Off-site and on-site improvements. ° Whether or not a project of this magnitude will have any effect on the community as to the amount of public or private services to be used (sewer, power, fire, etc.) Mr. Stafford noted that the development schedule is indicated as October 1983 for beginning of construction, with approximate completion date of April 1987. Phase I is scheduled to begin in October 1983, and Phase II in November 1985. Regarding public services, plans for this project, and the E.I.R., have been reviewed by Sanitation District 4, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Pacific Gas & Electric, and other affected agencies. In each instance, they have in- dicated they do not foresee any problems. Comments from the State agencies have centered primarily on the traffic impact, with primary concern relating to flow across Highway 17 on Hamilton Avenue. They have recommended that a westbound lane on Hamilton Avenue be added. Mr. Helms stated that Staff's feeling is that the discernable impact of traffic has been identified within the E.I.R. and Staff does not feel it necessary to extend the study beyond that already addressed. Commissioner Kasolas asked what impact the construction is going to have on the community, pertaining to traffic, and what mitigating measures will be taken. - 4- h1r. Yelms noted that there is some discussion pertaining to these mitigation measures on page 23 of the amended Draft E.I.R. Commissioner Howard stated that he foresaw major traffic problems, parti- cularly during the construction process. He stated he was also concerned about fire safety, and asked if some type of roof escape should be pro- vided for, noting that it was his understanding that the current roof design would not facilitate rescue by helicopter, etc. Commissioner Campos questioned the validity of the relocation plan in- cluded in the staff report. Mr. Kee noted that Staff recommended in the original study that the applicant come back with a relocation plan and a financial plan to be approved by the City Council once they received conceptual approval. This is addressed under Condition No. 41 in the Staff Comment Sheet. Staff is recommending that further information addressing relocation be brought before the Council prior to approval by the Council. Staff is of the opinion that the presented relocation plan is acceptable, but does not contain adequate detail--we are recommending that more complete plans be presented to the Council. Commissioner Campos asked if the adoption of the E.I.R. would affect the project approval. Mr. Kee stated that it should not affect the project approval. Commissioner Dickson stated that with regard to traffic, the statements in the Staff Comment Sheet indicate a very definite traffic problem on Hamilton Avenue at this point. He felt that something should be done to alleviate this problem before allowing any additional construction. Mr. Helms noted his concurrence with Commissioner Dickson, and indicated that Staff has been concerned with this problem for some time; however the opportunities for mitigating the problems were few--until the idea of ex- tending Campisi flay over the creek was presented. Commissioner Dickson felt that perhaps an area-wide study should be made to see if the situation might be improved. Mr. Helms noted that, as the Commission may recall, when the Ainsley property was considered for development, several consultants looked at this very problem, as well as Staff from Campbell and San Jose. This study resulted in additional lanes on Hamilton Avenue. Further improvement would require additional roadways in the entire area, such as Route 85 and the Guadelupe Corridor. The substantial traffic impacts of this proposed development can, be mitigated by the recommended improvements. Chairman Kotowski asked if Staff was saying that without this development there would be no relief of the traffic situation on Hamilton Avenue. Commissioner Kasolas asked if Staff was saying that the only way the situation is going to improve is with this specific plan and this specific project. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she was concerned with the traffic also. She stated she would prefer to have one more independent traffic study of this area, addressing the E.I.R. and looking at the surrounding area, because of the tremendous impact on the entire area. -5- Commissioner Campos requested clarification of the Summary of Table 5 in the E.I.R. which indicated the worst case peak hour levels of service at project area in- tersection, contained in the Staff Comment Sheet. Mr. Helms responded that as indicated by the data shown in the summary (attached), there is a significant improvement in the critical intersection locations of Hamilton and Salmar and Hamilton and Bascom, in that these intersections would function with less congestion if the project is developed than they would in 1986 (target date) without any additional construction on the property. The rationale for this is that the project would provide for improvements that would not be provided for in the event the subject property is not developed. Chairman Kotowski declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Tom Fleischli, applicant, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation. He noted that the records of the past meetings indicated it was generally agreed that the E.I.R. not necessarily address the relocation problem until the pro- ject was approved. However, since he felt that the Commission would like as much information as possible, he provided a report addressing some of these concerns with the agenda packet. He also noted that it is his understanding that information contained in the amended draft E.I.R. supercedes the original draft E.I.R. Mr. Michael Hogan, Earthmetrics, noted that the amended draft E.I.R. which is before the Commission this evening does supercede the original document.. Mr. Hogan stated that it is his belief that the traffic information that is con- tained in the amended document has been reviewed by several different entities and has been found satisfactory and complete, and he felt that any further study would result in the same information. He concurred with Staff's statement that the impact area has been adequately identified. He pointed out that while the construction impact analysis is relatively brief, he felt the level of service from construction will not be severely impacted. Mr. Wayne Mitsunaga, 1518 Via Cancion, San Jose, spoke against the E.I.R., noting that he felt additional traffic studies must be done, the mitigation measures listed were inadequate, failure to mention the visual impact and noise impact, and that the E.I.R. did not mention what effect the additional traffic would have on the hospital facilities in the area. Mr. Joe Moerenhout, 1493 Camino Cerrado, San Jose, spoke against the E~I.R., stating he was concerned with the fire protection, and the addition of lanes on Hamilton Avenue. Mr. Don Garrison, 2283 Renway, Campbell, spoke against this item noting that the traffic in the area is already at its peak, and that all the tall buildings should not be congregated in the same area of the city. Mr. Tom Fleischli stated that he felt the mitigating measures expressed in the E.I.R. were reasonable pertaining to flex-time, car -pooling, etc. He stated that the buildings have large floor areas on each level which will be conducive to large organizations leasing them. Larger companies can organize car-pooling. Mr. Fleischli pointed out that the General Plan for this property is Commercial, and the proposed application is in conformance with the current General Plan and zoning for the property. -6- Mr. Michael Hogan stated that the mitigation measures listed in the E.I.R. make no assumptions as to the applicability of public transit. These suggested measures are never intended to completely turn-around the situation-- only to make a small dent. The economics of the buildings dictate larger tenants, rather than small businesses. There is ample room on-site for the martialling of construction traffic. The visual impact of the project is one of the major sections addressed in the amended E.I.R. The noise impact of the construction was not a point of instruction for the E.I.R.; however Earthmetrics has confirmed the City's study. Regarding the ability to improve traffic without construction of the project--the bare economics dictate that the public agencies are unable to bbsorb the total costs of these improvements. By certifying the E.I.R., the Council is only saying they have adequate data with which to move forward on--they are not committing to anything. Mr. Gary Smith, Fire Department, addressed the Commission's earlier question regarding roof-top rescue. He noted that rescue by .helicopter is a very limited procedure, subject to air drafts, and not usually able to be used at night. It is usually one of the last methods of evacuation. There are several other more successful methods of evacuation provided for in the construction of high-rises. No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unani- mously (7-0-0). It was moved by Commissioner Meyer that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify this Draft E.I.R. as complete. Motion died for lack of a second. ***Discussion Commissioner Dickson stated that he believed the Draft E.I.R. has not done a good job, and he would discuss this under the project item which is next on the agenda. RESOLUTION N0. 2164 It was moved by Commissioner Meyer, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2164 recommending that the City Council certify as complete the Draft E.I.R., pur- suant to Section 15085(G) of the State E.I.R. Guide- lines. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Meyer, Fairbanks, Campos, Dickson, Kotowski NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None The Commission took a break at 9:10 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:25 p.m. *** ***Correction made in January 25, 1983 minutes... -7- PD 82-08 Continued public hearing to consider the applica- Fleischli, T. tion of Mr. Thomas Fleischli on behalf of "900 Prometheus E. Hamilton Avenue, A general Partnership" for Development approval of plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of an office complex on property known as 920 E. Hamilton Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Fairbanks reported that this item had been considered at the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting this morning. Each committee member had their own particular concerns with the project. She expanded on the term "in concept" referred to in the Staff Recommendation, noting that this term is used because all the specific details of the project are not available at this time. Commissioner Fairbanks noted that the applicant also has some concerns with some of the conditions of approval in that they appear to be vague; an example being Condition 37 referring to a bicycle pathway. Commissioner Howard stated that it was his feeling that this project is so enormous and controversial that the entire Commission should review it, rather than be subject to a recommendation of the Site Review Committee. Mr. Kee presented background on this project, noting that the applicant is proposing to construct an office project which would consist of three structures of 6, 11, and 15 stories, totaling approximately 485,000 sq.ft. of gross building area. In addition, a two-level above-grade parking structure is also proposed for the site. Proposed off-site improvements include a tunnel beneath Hamilton Avenue with associated ramps, a bridge across Los Gatos Creek to connect with Campisi Way, and the widening of the Hamilton Avenue bridge across Highway 17 to add one more westbound traffic lane. Due to the scale of the project, Staff-can support the requested 1:250 parking ratio; however, Staff is recommending the maximum number of compact stalls be limited to 40%. Relocation of the mobilehome park residents is an issue which has been raised by the Commission on previous occasions. Since the last public hearing before the Commission on this development (PD 82-13) the applicant and homeowners group have agreed to a plan calling for the relocation of the mobilehome park to the Hamilton School site. Since the ownership of this school site is still being litigated, other potential sites are beino investigated. Conditions related to relocation and relocation assistancevare included as part of the conditions of approval. The concerns identified by Staff in the Staff Comment Sheet (1 through 6) which should be clarified in subsequent plans to be approved by the Planning Commission are addressed under Condition 1. Chairman Kotowski noted that this project has 41 conditions of approval attached for it, as well as a recommendation for approval "in concept". He asked if all these concerns would be addressed one at a time, or all in one package. -8- Mr. Kee indicated that the off-site improvements have not been determined as yet, and it is not a normal requirement to do all of these prior to approval of the Commission. Most of the conditions approach this develop- ment the same way as any other approval--rather than have the applicant go into extensive building plans at this point, we are requiring he come back to the Planning Commission and the Site Review Committee for approval of detailed plans. Staff feels there is enough information on the presented plans to go forward and recommend to the City Council that we have a project that is feasible. Staff is comfortable recommending approval with the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. The Commission will receive back a site plan with detailed information addressing the parking structure, circulation, public improvements, etc. It would be at that time the Commission could send back anything they are not in agreement with. Commissioner Campos questioned the use of the word "vicinity" in Condition 41A - Relocation Plan. Does this mean the immediate area, or could it be in San Jose. Mr. Kee noted that he would think it would be in Campbell, if it were agreeable to the mobilehomeowner's and the applicant, although it would not have to be limited to a certain number of miles within Campbell if it is agreed upon by both parties. He added that there is also an arbitration clause provided. Commissioner Campos questioned the definition of "comparable housing." City Attorney Dempster noted that this information is provided for under Title 25 (attached hereto), with the exception of (5). Commissioner Kasolas questioned Conditions 20 & 21, pertaining to the fire resistance of the buildings and the parking structure. Additionally, under Condition 5, the $25,000 bond would not be enough to insure the provision of landscaping, striping, etc., and are there other methods that can be used to insure the compliance. Mr. Kee stated that Staff would monitor the project; however, if the Commission would like to increase the bond amount, that would be its right. Another way in insuring the completion of the landscaping is with the condition pertaining to building occupancy. Commissioner hleyer questioned the "in concept" phrase, and asked if the Commission would be seeing the detailed plans from this point on: Mr. Stafford noted that the Commission would be reviewing the detailed plans, and the plans could be handled with a site and architectural approval, rather than a public hearing process. Mr. Wally Byron, Building Official, clarified Conditions 20 & 21 pertaining to the fire resistance of the building construction. Type I is unlimited in height. A Type II building is limited to 160 feet in height. Chapter 17 of the t;ui?ding code outlines these specifications. Additionally, a Type I building requires a three-hour frame, and a Type II building only requires a two-hour fire frame. The building code only specifies the fire resistivity of the building--not the ability of fire protection. Commissioner Fairbanks questioned the building height limitations in this zoning district. -9- Mr. Kee stated that there is no height limitation in the PD (Planned Development) Zoning District or in the C-2-S (Commercial) Zoning District. In other General Commercial zones the height limitation would be 75 feet; there are exceptions to --- this, however. Chairman Kotowski declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Tom Fleischli spoke in favor of the Staff Recommendation for approval in concept. He stated he would like to register certain concerns regarding some of the Conditions of Approval. Condition 15 recommends 40% compact parking stalls in Phase I--he stated he continues to feel that 50% compact parking is an appropriate requirements, and this is addressed in a study made by Wilbur- Smith Consultants (report included in packet). Condition 37 providing a pedestrian-bicycle pathway along westerly bank of Los Gatos Creek and across new bridge to easterly creek bank--while Mr. Fleischli spoke in favor of this type of amenity, he stated he had a problem with the bicycle path across the bridge in that they are proposing a bridge that will be 30 feet wide with a 7 foot sidewalk. He suggested that perhaps people riding bicycles could walk their bicycles across, since the addition of a bi- cycle lane could add a great deal more to the cost of the project. Mr. Fleischli continued that he is in agreement with the approach taken this evening to approve the project "in concept", noting that he feels they can work with Staff to provide the final details to bring back to the Commission. Commissioner Campos asked if there is any other pedestrian-bicycle pathway within the city, and if so, is it constructed under the same conditions being presented here this evening. Mr. Helms indicated that the City does have an extensive bicycle pathway system along the creek. There is a long-range plan being considered by the City to extend that path throughout the length of the City along the Creek. The City is not, however, contemplating a separate structure, but rather using a portion of the proposed bridge. Staff feels it is too early in the project definition to provide specific detail as to the width of the proposed bridge. Commissioner Fairbanks noted that for clarification, Conditions 36 & 39 are to be addressed in Phase II of the construction. Mr. Tim Lundell, Attorney for the Hamilton Mobilehome Park Homeowner's Association, spoke on behalf of the homeowner's association registering conditional approval of the project. Mr. Lundell expressed at length, his concern with the staff recommendation of Condition 41 -- Relocation Plan, stating that he feels it is contrary to all the work already accom- plished by the developer and the mobilehomeowner's association. He referred to his letter contained in the agenda packet dated January 6, 1983 (attached hereto). Condition 41 appears to promote relocation assistance rather than the provision of a new mobilehome park. This is not satisfactory to the mobilehome park tenants. He asked the Commission to make a condition of approval provide fora replacement mobilehome park. -10- Mr. Kee noted that it is not Staff's intention that the relocation plan be placed in limbo, and noted that the introduction to Condition 41 in- dicated the word "guidelines". Staff feels that this condition give the City.Council the authority to require a detailed plan that is acceptable to the developer and mobilehome tenants which includes any number of the possibilities mentioned. Mr. Dempster stated that these conditions are meant to be "guidelines", and that the City Council will certainly receive input from all factions to arrive at a relocation plan that is acceptable to everyone involved. He stressed that the City is not attempting in any way to allow anyone to get by with a lesser program that what they are asking for. Mr. Lundell stated that he sees this condition as a specific proposal because it mentions dollar amounts and other specifics. It is his opinion that "guidelines" are minimums--the least acceptable. Mr. Dempster stated that in his opinion the City is not saying these "guidelines" are minimums, or least acceptable. The Council is going to listen to the people and to the developers. The City is not stating that these minimums are acceptable--merely a place to begin--guidelines. Each guideline will be studied in detail, and provides a place to begin. Chairman Kotowski noted that there are no details in the majority of the conditions, and that the details are going to be worked out in the process. Mr. Charles Williamson, Hamilton Mobilehome Owner's Association, spoke at length regarding the staff recommendation, reiterating the comments of Mr. Lundell. He concluded that the developer and the residents would like some indication in the form of a conditional approval of this pro- ject. He also felt that the Commission should direct the Staff to modify the guidelines to fully conform with Title 25 Section 6008, and schedule an impact hearing as required by the government code. Mr. Wayne Mitsunaga stated that he felt the improvements were too small for the proposed project, he questioned the parking ratio of 50% compact, and stated he would like to Commission to walk the neighborhood across Hamilton Avenue relating to the noise and visual impact that these buildings will have on his area. He felt that if this project is going to be built, the size should be reduced, and additional sound barriers should be provided for. Mr. Joe Moerenhout stated that approving this project would be a great mistake, and that it is proposed for the wrong location. No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Campos stated that it was his understanding that a detailed relocation plan would be provided for on this project, and he is not satisfied with the plan provided in the staff report. He questioned the impact of approving the project with the direction that Condition 41 go back to Staff for further clarification. -11- Mr. Kee noted that if Condition ~1 were to read "The applicant shall provide a detailed relocation plan acceptable to the City Council describing how each tenant will be relocated prior to issuance of a building permit," the guidelines would be left open at that point. The item could go on to the City Council and leave the authority in the hands of the Council to accept a detailed relocation plan. City Attorney Dempster noted that the guidelines provided are "guidelines". Commissioner Dickson stated he had real problems with the traffic. He felt this item should be continued or denied until there is a solution found to some of the traffic problems. He disagreed with the applicant in his desire to increase the compact parking ratios to 50%. He felt that there may be other ingress/egress for the site, that the density was too intense, and that a higher density is not necessarily a better use although the PD is supposed to demonstrate that a higher and better use than is possible under the commercial zone. He spoke for a continuance. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she had the concerns with sound attenuation (which were not addressed in the E.I.R.). She also expressed difficulty with the "in concept" idea with a project of this magnitude. Regarding the phasing, the 15 story and the 6 story buildings are proposed for construction in the first phase--if the second phase is not completed, there will be no 11 story building to balance out the aesthetics of the project. She continued that she felt it would behoove the City to have an independent traffic study on this area--in the form of a narrative report. Regarding landscaping, she was concerned that the majority of it seemed to be at the south end of the project. --- She expressed concern with the parking structure--it takes up a very large portion of the property, and most parking structures are very unattractive. She noted she would prefer to see the development holding to the parking ratios as required in the ordinance. Under the PD district, there is allowance for the proposed building heights; however, she suggested it is time consideration was given to how tall they want the city to be. Commissioner Meyer asked Mr. Kee if, in terms of the "in concept" approval, this project could be held up at any point. Mr. Kee stated that this was his understanding. Commissioner Kasolas stated that this project should be looked at as an opportunity to the community and an opportunity to the mobilehome park owners, in that it provides jobs both during the construction phase, and after its completion. Regarding the mobilehome park residents, Commissioner Kasolas stated that he felt the Council will be more than reasonable with regard to the relocation plan. He stated that there seemed to be more than enough conditions to mitigate traffic as much as possible, and that the pro- ject will not go forward until revised plans have been approved. He con- cluded that he thought the conditions of approval were very clear. Commissioner Howard stated that he felt it is time a decision; and, although there are things that he conceptual idea of the project is very well done. give the city the flexibility necessary; and, that going to be present--although the required improves of these in the future. for the Commission to make did not like, the overall He felt that the conditions the traffic problem is always vents may help alleviate some -12- RESOLUTION N0. 2165 It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2165 recommending that the City Council approve PD 82-08, in concept, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet, with the clarification that Conditions 1 through 41 pertaining exclusively to Phase I of construction, excepting Conditions 36 and 39 which address Phase II of construction; and, Condition 41 is to read "The applicant shall provide a detailed relocation plan acceptable to the City Council describing how each tenant will be relocated prior to issuance of a building permit," onl Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Meyer, Campos, Kotowski NOES: Commissioners: Fairbanks, Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: None The Commission took a break at 11:15 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 11:20 p.m. PD 82-07 Continued public hearing to consider the application Kamboj, 0. of Mr. Om Kamboj fora planned development permit and approval of plans to allow the expansion of an existing retail building and the construction of a new commercial building on property known as 880 E. Campbell Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/ Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending a continuance of this item, with the concurrence of the applicant in order that the applicant may submit revised plans. Chairman Kotowski declared the public hearing open 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 Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that PD 82-07 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 1983 at the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). *** UP 82-25 Continued public hearing to consider the application Haigh, J. of Mr. Jack Haigh on behalf of Syufy Enterprises for a use permit to allow a flea market to be operated on weekends between the hours of 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. on property known as 535 Westchester Drive (Win- chester Drive-In) in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. -13- Mr. Kee reported that a request for b 30 day continuance has been received from the applicant. Chairman Kotowski declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Ted Moeller, 53 Palomar Real, spoke on behalf of the Paseo de Palomas Mobilehome Park residents opposing the issuance of a use permit for a flea market on the basis of traffic, trash, vandalism, robberies ,lack of security, and noise factors. He noted that the mobilehome park residents were opposed to the theater being put in this area years ago. Mr. Moeller stated that the mobilehome park has not had cooperation from the theater management in relation to complaints and problems. He concluded that the park residents are already under a great deal of stress in that they have been evicted from the property by the property owner, and it would be unfortunate to add any additional burdens to these people. Mr. Moeller presented a petition con- taining 135 signatures opposing the granting of this use permit (attached hereto and made a part of this record). Mr. Gordon Turner, 94 La Paz, spoke against the granting of a use permit for a flea market citing the problems indicated by Mr. Moeller. Chairman Kotowski requested Staff to report back regarding police difficulties between the mobilehome park and the drive-in for the last 24 months, if possible. No one else wishing to speak at this time, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that UP 82-25 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 1983. Motion carried unanimously. (7-0-0). *** UP 82-27 Public hearing to consider the application of Stevensen, M. Mr. Mark Stevensen fora use permit and approval of plans to allow the conversion of a duplex to an office on property known as 35 & 45 S. First St. in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Fairbanks reported that this item had been before the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. The Committee is recommending denial based on discussion contained in the staff report. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending denial. Staff cannot support this request because of the lack of on-site parking. In addition, the building being situated on the property lines would make it more difficult to bring them up to building code standards. Staff does acknowledge that the nonconforming use of the building as a residence is not very desirable because of its location in a commercial area; however, it is the policy of the City Council that commercial uses in the downtown area must be able to provide for sufficient off-street parking. Chairman Kotowski asked if there were any solution to the problem. -14- Mr. Kee responded that one solution would be the acquisition of additional property. The width of the property, as far as access to the rear of the site, does not provide for parking in the back of the buildings. Commissioner Kasolas asked if there was any development in this vicinity where parking was not required, due to the parking problem in the downtown area. Mr. Kee stated that if the property use goes from one commercial use to another commercial use, parking on-site is not required if it has not been required from the beginning. Chairman Kotowski declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this project. No one wishing to speak at this time, it was moved by Commission Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that UP 82-27 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 1983 in order that the Commission might hear from the applicant. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). * ~ PD 82-09 Public hearing to consider the application of Babet Financial Babet Financial Corporation for a planned Corporation development permit and approval of plans, elevations and development schedule to a11ow the conversion and renovation of an existing school building to 44,300 sq.ft. of office space on property known as 51 E. Campbell Avenue in a PD-H (Planned Development/Historic Preservation Overlay) Zoning District. Commissioner Fairbanks reported that this item had been considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. The Committee is recommending a continuance to January 25, 1983 in order that the Commission might receive comments from the Historic Preservation Board. The Committee expressed concern with the parking, and the Architectural Advisors concerns about the window materials. Basically, the Committee liked what was presented. Mr. Kee stated that Staff was in the process of contacting the Historic Pre- servation Board to arrange a special meeting. Staff is in concurrence with a continuance to the meeting of January 25, 1983. Chairman Kotowski declared the public hearing open 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 Howard, that the Planning Commission continue PD 82-09 to the meeting of January 25, 1983. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -15- ZC 82-08 Public hearing to consider the application of Babet Financial Babet Financial Corporation for a zone change Corporation from PD (Planned Development) to C-PD (Condominium Planned Development) and approval of plans, ele- vations, and development schedule to allow the construction of 144 condominium units on property known as 51 E. Campbell Avenue (rear portion). Commissioner Fairbanks reported that this item had been considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. The Committee is recommending a continuance to the meeting of January 25, 1983; and has concerns with parking, the looks of individual units, and the definition of a "den" which could be easily turned into another bedroom which would change the parking ratio. The Committee would like to add a condition addressing the trees currently in the site. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the usual condominium/townhouse unit built is from 1400 to 1700 sq.ft. The average square footage of these units is under 800 sq.ft. It appeared to him that these units were going to be occupied by one or two persons at the most. He stated he would seriously question the requirement to impose the normal parking requirements, in that the present ordinance is based upon the larger sized living units. He felt that the parking needs would depend upon the size of the units and the type of people residing in these units. Chairman Kotowski declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. No one wishing to speak at this time, Commissioner Dickson moved, and Commissioner Fairbanks seconded, that ZC 82-08 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 1983. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). *** TA 82-04 Continued public hearing to consider the City- City-initiated initiated text amendments to Chapter 21.41 of the Campbell Municipal Code (Historic Preservation). Chairman Kotowski declared the public hearing open 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 Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that TA 82-04 be continued due to the late hour to the meeting of January 25, 1983. Motion carried-unanimously (7_0-0). MISCELLANEOUS PD 81-06 Continued request of Mr. Ron Troyan for a revised Troyan, R. development schedule for a previously approved office complex on property known as 901 Campisi Way in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. -16- Mr. Kee stated that Staff is recommending approval of this reinstatement, subject to the previous conditions of approval, with the addition of the following conditions: 1. Applicant to submit revised site plans (prior to issuance of a building permit) for the approval of the Planning Commission indicating the new public street alignment according to stan- dards of the Public Works Department. 2. An agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, which pro- vides that the applicant will cooperate in establishing the new street alignment, is required. Mr. Ron Troyan, applicant, stated that he was in agreement with the proposal as stated, and thanked the Commission and Staff for their efforts in resolving the problem. Mr. Troyan asked that the Commission extent his approval for the period of one year, rather for the six months originally requested, due to the possibility of further construction delays. It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas, that PD 81-06 be reinstated, subject to the conditions previously approved as well as the conditions stated by Mr. Kee this evening, fora period of one year from this evening - January 10, 1984. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). UP 82-06 _ Six-month review of a previously approved use Greenfelder, J. permit to allow the conversion of an existing gasoline station into a mini-market on property known as 2015 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-3-S (Central Business District) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending the Commission review this item in one month. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that UP 82-06 be continued to the meeting of February 8, 1983. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). *** UP 82-07 Continued six-month review of use permit allowing Schuman, R. an auto repossession storage yard and allowing the use of a mobilehome as an .office on property known as 175 Curtner Avenue in an M-2-S (Heavy Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee stated that Staff is recommending a continuance of this item. It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that UP 82-07 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 1983. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). *** -17- MM 82-07 Request of Mr. Joseph Moore for a minor modification Moore, J. to a sideyard setback from 9 feet to 6 feet for pro- _ perty known as 1423 Bent Drive in an R-1 (Single Family/ Low Density Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending approval of this request to allow the addition of a second story. A letter from the adjacent property owner is included in the staff report. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that MM 82-07 be approved as per Staff recommendation. Motion carried unani- mously (7-0-0). *** UP 82-24 Request of Ms. Louise Steele for a modification Steele, L. to an approved use permit to allow a reduction from 15 feet to 10 feet for the north setback for a house move-on, on property known as 1240 Harriet Avenue in an Interim (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Fairbanks reported that this item had been considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. The Committee is recommending approval subject to the previous conditions of approval. It is the understand- ing of the Committee that both the garage and the move-on house are single story structures. The recommendation for approval is based on concerns for the tree. Mr. Kee noted that Staff is recommending approval of this setback reduction, in that it is Staff's opinion that the request is reasonable because of the limited flexibility of a house move-on and because of the importance of pre- serving the large oak tree on the property. Commissioner Kasolas commented that the Commission should show some consistency in that this project is directly across the street from a site that was before the Commission at the last meeting, at which the Commission told the applicant it was not appropriate(to subdivide the site) with the atmosphere we are trying to maintain in this area. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer that this modification to the north setback from 15 feet to 10 feet be approved as per staff recommendation, subject to the previous conditions of approval for UP 82-24. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Commissioner Dickson noted that he was voting on a lot setback, not the size of a parcel. *** SA 82-21 Application of Liquor Barn for signing on property Liquor Barn known as 1650 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General - Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Fairbanks reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. The Committee is recommending approval of the two requested signs attached to the building (#2 and #3 in the Staff Comment Sheet). -18- Mr. Jim McLey, Cal-Neon Signs, stated that he is in agreement with the Committee's recommendation. It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that the Planning Commission approve the following signing for the Liquor Barn at 1650 S. Bascom Avenue: 1. 90 sq.ft. sign on the front of the building facing Bascom Avenue. 2. 50 sq.ft. sign on the north elevation of the building facing Hamilton Avenue. 3. Denial of afree-standing sign identifying the "Liquor Barn". Discussion Commissioner Dickson stated that he is opposition to the motion because he feels the Commission should uphold the sign ordinance. Commissioner Howard noted that there are several businesses in that area where the signs are much larger. The proposed signing is in accordance with the size of the building, and is much smaller than what is currently on the building. Vote on Motion The motion for approval as indicated above passed with a vote of 6-0-1, with Commissioner Dickson voting "no". Commissioner Kasolas commented that it might be appropriate at this time to look at what might happen with the effects of the new sign ordinance. It appears that the new ordinance reduces height of signs, but not surface area. He questioned the possible creation of site problems with some of the signs on Campbell Avenue. *** Staff Report Staff report regarding guidelines for variances. It was the concensus of the Commission that this report be acknowledged and filed. *** Staff Report Staff report assignments of Commissioners to various Planning Commission Sub-Committees. Chairman Kotowski indicated the following assignments to various Sub-Committees for the 1983 year: Site and Architectural Review Committee: Commissioner Fairbanks, Chairman Commissioner Howard Commissioner Meyer - Alternate Transit Committee: Commissioner Dickson Liaison to City Council: Commissioner Kasolas -19- Staff Report Staff report regarding recylcing center and mini-trailer storage on McGlincey Lane. Mr. Kee reported that Staff has investigated and determined that the recycling use at 700 E. McGlincey Lane was established prior to annexation of this pro- perty to the City in 1979. However, the recent use of the property for trailer storage has not been approved, and action is presently underway to abate this use. It was the concensus of the Commission that this report be acknowledged and filed. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Campos, and seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. APPROVED: Michael F. Kotoski Chairman - ATTEST: Arthur A. kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda Dennis Recording Secretary