Loading...
PC Min 12/14/1982PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA - TUESDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1982 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, Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks, Meyer; 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 November 23, 1982 It was moved by Commissioner Campos, and seconded b_y Commissioner Howard, that the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 23, 1982 be approved as submitted. Motion carried with a vote of 5-0-0-2, with Commissioners Fairbanks and Kotowski abstaining due to absence at the subject meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR PD 82-01 Request of P4r. Kenneth Bergman for approval of a Hedley, W. revised de~~elopment schedule to allow the conversion of a singld-family residence to a commercial/pro- fessional building on property known as 850 E. Campbell Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. It was moved by Commissioner Campos, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the Planning Commission approve the revised development schedule for PD 82-01, as per Staff's recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 82-14 Continued application of Mr. Morris Stark for approval Stark, M. of plans and elevations to allow construction of a 5,600 sq.ft. addition to an existing industrial building on property known as 781 McGlincey Lane in a CM:B-20 (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural RevieYr Committee this morning, and the Committee is recommending approval. -2- Mr. Kee reported that this application had been continued in order that the applicant might submit revised plans. The applicant has submitted revised plans which indicate the relocation of the trash enclosure and an adjustment to several parking stalls allowing improved site circulation. This applica- tion meets the newly adopted parking ratios of 1:400 for industrial buildings, and 1:225 for office uses. Staff is recommending approval. It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that S 82-14 be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet (attached hereto). Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). *** S 82-15 Continued application of Mr. Larry Hester for approval Hester, L. of plans and elevations to allow construction of a 6,516 sq.ft. warehouse building on property known as 408 Industrial Street in a M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item had been considered at the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. The Committee has no additional comments to add to Staff's comments since the applicant has addressed the concerns expressed previously by Staff. The Committee is recommending approval. Mr. Kee noted that the revised for this project or a ratio of within the warehouse addition. which reserves 1,620 sq.ft. of is of the opinion that the park recommending approval. plans indicate the provision of 14 parking spaces 1:462. Four of the proposed spaces are indicated Staff is recommending Condition N on this approval, the proposed building for parking purposes. Staff ing will be adequate fora warehousing use, and is It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that the S 82-15 be approved, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet (attached hereto). Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ADDITION TO AGENDA Chairman Meyer noted to the Commission that there would be two additional items for consideration this evening--a report by the Fire Department con- cerning hazardous waste disposal and the nomination and election of officers for 1983. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS EIR 81-02 Public hearing to consider the Draft Environmental Prometheus Impact Report which has been prepared fora pro- Development posed professional office project to be located at _ 920 East Hamilton Avenue. Mr. Kee reported that this item is directly related to the next item on the agenda, PD 82-08. Correspondence has been received from Prometheus Develop- ment Company requesting a continuance of both this item and PD 82-08. On the basis of this request, Staff would recommend a continuance. -3- The Recording Secretary read into the minutes a letter from Prometheus Development Company, dated December 13, 1982 requesting a continuance for the proposed project at 920 E. Hamilton Avenue (attached hereto and made an part of these minutes). Mr. Kee stated that Staff's recommendation would be to open the public hearing, and then have a motion for continuance to January 11, 1983. This would be consistent with past actions of the Commission. Chairman Meyer 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 Kotowski, that EIR 81-02 be continued to the meeting of January 11, 1983, as per the applicant's request. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). ~iccuccinn Commissioner Dickson expressed his concern that this item had already been noticed fora public hearing, and was again requesting a continuance. He asked if there was something that could be done to lessen the hardship and expense on everyone. City Attorney Dempster stated that a continuance is a normal order to business. Mr. Kee stated that Staff did call a representative of the mobilehome park as well as deliver copies of the agenda items and informed them of this request for a continuance. Commissioner Campos asked if the information presented this evening will be the same information presented for the meeting in January. Mr. Kee responded that to his knowledge the information presented this evening would be the same for the January meeting. Commissioner Kasolas asked if it would also be appropriate at this time to discuss any changes in the Draft EIR pertaining to the Ainsley property in San Jose, as noted in the newspaper, relating to traffic; as well as fire protection for the proposed development. Commissioner Kasolas suggested that at the January 11, 1983 meeting these two issues be addressed by way of the EIR or a separate report. Mr. Kee stated that this could be included in an addendum to the EIR, and be brought back to the Commission at the January 11 meeting. Commissioner Kasolas requested that information be presented addressing the impact, if any, of a change in land use on the Ainsley property, the traffic pattern in the designated area--projected or targeted--for any proposed change and its affect on the proposed Prometheus Development. *** -4- PD 82-08 Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Fleischli, T. Thomas Fleischli on behalf of "900 E. Hamilton Avenue, A General Partnership" for approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of an office building on property known as 920 E. Hamilton Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee stated that this item is directly related to the previous item on this evening's agenda. Staff would also recommend a continuance at the request of the applicant. Chairman Meyer 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 PD 82-08 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 1982. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). *** PD 82-06 Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Martinez, ~1. Michael Martinez for a planned development permit and approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of a 7,400 sq.ft. office building on property known as 900 E. Campbell Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. The Committee would like to call the Commission's attention to Condition M under the Public Works Department ("Provide evidence of the mutual access easement."), noting that the Committee had specifically asked that the applicant make a legal agreement with the adjoining property owner regarding the common driveway being proposed. The Committee is recommending approval. Mr. Kee reported that the applicant has addressed concerns indicated by Staff and the Commission, and Staff is recommending approval, subject to conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Michael Martinez, applicant, stated that he has worked out an agreement with the Bridal Shop owner (adjoining property owner), and this should be completed within two weeks. No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). -5- RESOLUTION N0. 2159 It was moved by Comm Commissioner Howard, adopt Resolution No. PD 82-06, subject to Staff Comment Sheet. roll call vote: issioner Kasolas, and seconded by that the Planning Commission 2159 recommending approval of the conditions listed in the Motion carried by the following AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None PD 82-07 Continued public hearing to consider the application Kamboj, 0. of Mr. Om Kamboj for a 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. Commissioner Kotowski reported that the applicant met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. The Committee is recommending a continuance, at the request of the applicant. There are a number of concerns expressed in the Staff Comment Sheet, as well as problems with the Building Department. The applicant feels that he can redraw the plans to address these problems. Mr. Kee stated that Staff is in agreement with this recommendation. Chairman Meyer 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 Fairbanks,. that PD 82-07 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 1983. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). UP 82-25 Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Jack Haigh, J. Haigh on behalf of Syufy Enterprises fora use permit to allow a flea market to be operated on weekends be- tween the hours of 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. on property known as 535 Westchester Drive (Winchester Drive-In) in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. h1r. Kee reported that the applicant is requesting approval of a use permit to allow the operation of a flea market at the Winchester Drive-In on weekends between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. One of Staff's concerns is the effect of noise from the flea market on the Paseo de Palomas Mobilehome Park, adjacent to the drive-in on the east. The applicant has indicated that there will be no loud speaker system and that parking will not be immediately adjacent to the mobile- home park. Staff is also recommending that the start of the flea market be changed from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. With these conditions, noise impact should be minimal. It is Staff's opinion that the use should not create major traffic -6- problems, as incoming and outgoin g traffic will not be concentrated at a certain time, but rather spread out over the day. In general, Staff believes that the use is acceptable and should not be detrimental to the area; however, Staff is recommending a six-month review of this use. Commissioner Kasolas asked if Staff knew what experience other flea markets in the area have had regarding the hours and the restriction of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Kee noted that Staff did contact the City of San Jose. The concerns expressed by San Jose have been addressed in our conditions of approval. Mr. Helms stated that the Public Works Department Staff spoke with the San Jose Traffic Engineering Division, and they indicated they had no problems with flea markets and they anticipated Campbell would have no problems. Commissioner Fairbanks noted that several letters have been received pertaining to this item (attached to the Staff Comment Sheet), all concerned with the trash problem in the area. She asked if there was something that could be done to alleviate this concern. Mr. Kee stated that condition no. 5 of the, Planning Department indicated a review of this use permit in six months, and,other than the word of the applicant, there is really no way to police a problem such as this. There may also be other problems which might arise that cannot be foreseen at this time--these could all be looked at in a six-month review. Chairman Meyer noted to the Commission that all the letters attached to the Staff Comment Sheet were, in fact, from the same address. Commissioner Campos as how close this activity is proposed to the mobilehome park, and if there was any information available regarding the trip ends for this type of operation. Mr. Kee noted that there is a landscape buffer between the park and the drive-in screen area of approximately 25 feet. Mr. Helms stated that he did not have trip-end information at this point. Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Jack Haigh, applicant, noted that he manages both the Winchester Drive-In and the Capitol Drive-In. Mr. Haigh stated that he is in agreement with the conditions of approval, except the suggested change in the hours (from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m.). He stated that the early hours are needed to get the sellers into the area and let them get set up for buyers who arrive later in the day. The normal hours for sellers to arrive is 7 a.m. Additionally, Mr. Haigh stated that he would make a commitment to police the trash situation; he was not aware there was a problem. Mr. Kee noted that Staff's main concern with the early starting time was with possible noise inflicted on the mobilehome park residents, and that is why the 9 a.m. starting time was proposed. -7- Commissioner Kotowski asked Mr. Haigh how much experience he has had with this type of operation, and how much noise can be generated. Mr. Haigh responded that his company has the Capitol Drive-In in San Jose, as well as one in Reno and one in Solano. He indicated that the noise generated by this type of operation was not much; and, if the opening for sellers is held off until 9 a.m., there will be a line-up of vehicles because the sellers like to get to the grounds early to get located. Mr. Haigh stated that he has not had any problems with his other operations. Regarding the trash situation, Mr. Haigh stated that the drive-in personnel fiad been cleaning up trash, and should still be doing so. He noted that he would speak to the t.'~eater manager immediately, and apologized for any problems. Commissioner Kotowski asked if there would be an auction at this flea market. Mr. Haigh stated there would not be. Commissioner Campos asked how alcoholic beverages would be controlled. Mr. Haigh stated that there would be no alcoholic beverages sold, and there is security staff on the premises at all times. Commissioner Dickson asked how the difference between buyers and sellers is determined. Mr. Haigh stated that the sellers come early and are assigned certain areas of the grounds on which they may park and set up their stalls. They are also registered at the gate and given sellers passes which identify them as such. Mr. Hugh Verasa, who has a business at 559 Westchester Drive, stated that he has noticed the trash problem and that usually his people pick it up on Monday morning. He would appreciate the drive-in taking care of this problem. He continued that his observation of the Capitol Drive-In operation is that people will not pay for parking on-site but will park on the street. There is also vandalism in the area, especially at night. Mr. Verasa also requested some security assurance in regard to the vandalism. He added that he has a good relationship with the theater and its management. Chairman Meyer asked if the buyers pay to enter the flea market or to park their vehicles. Mr. Haigh stated that buyers pay an admission fee::.and par.k~ae:the_pcemises, and there is no reason for anyone to park outside the theater. He added that the oarkin4 layout will be wherever the Police Department determines it to he. Mr. Arthur Burton, 879 McGlincey Lane, stated that he has removed quite a bit of trash from the area, especially in the summer months. In the past, - the theater has had people picking up trash, but he has not seen this done for several years now. He added that the policing of the trash situation would help. -8- Commissioner Kotowski indicated that he is not so concerned about the possible trash from the flea market use, as he is about the trash left in the area by the theater patrons. No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Discussion Commissioner Dickson stated that he would like additional information from Staff regarding the traffic; and, he was also concerned about the hours in relation to the noise inflicted on the mobilehome park residents. Commissioner Kasolas noted that Staff's concerns could be addressed by having a three-month review if necessary. The Commission has had many dealings with this applicant in the past, and he has been very accommodating. This is a 22 acre site which is vacant all day, and the proposed use seems to be appropriate. He added that he was comfortable with the parking layout and the fact that most of the sellers would be congregating around the snack bar area. Motion It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that UP 82-25 be approved with the hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., a three-month review, and the remainder of conditions as listed in the Staff ~~--~ Comment Sheet. Discussion on h1otion Commissioner Dickson stated that he was in disagreement with the motion due to traffic problems in the area. Commissioner Kotowski noted that the evening movies all start at a specific time with all the traffic converging in the area at once, whereas the flea market patrons would be arriving at staggered intervals. He added that the Commission may not have full information fora decision on this item. Commissoner Campos expressed concern with the 7 a.m. starting time, noting that this was extremely early for the mobilehome park residents. He felt that there was not enough information on traffic, as well as methods for controlling alcoholic beverages and vandalism. Commissioner Fairbanks expressed concerns regarding the hours of operation, as well as traffic. She noted she would be inclined toward a continuance of this item. Commissioner Howard noted that the flea markets he was familiar with were well operated, with a minimum of noise and traffic problems. It is his understanding that the drive-in access is controlled and sellers are not allowed to enter until 7 a.m. He added that he is in agreement with the motion. Commissioner Kotowski requested additional information regarding traffic. -9- Commissioner Howard noted that the requested traffic information could be presented at the proposed three-month review, thereby allowing Staff ade- quate time to accumulate needed data. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard NOES: Commissioners: Dickson, Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks, Meyer ABSENT: Commissioners: None Motion fails (4-2-0). P9otion It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that UP 82-25 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 1983. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Commissioner Kasolas noted that since the Commission was discussing the particular area of the city, he would like to ask Staff if the re-cycle center on McGlincey is an approved use and if it has been approved for mini-trailer storage, noting that it is rather unsightly. *** The Commission took a break at 8:50 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. UP 82-26 Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Shuart, R. Richard Shuart fora use permit to allow the division of a parcel of land into 3 lots on property known as 1253 Harriet Avenue in an Interim (Low Density Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that the applicant is applying for a use permit to allow the division of a parcel of land into three single family residential lots. At its meeting of December 7, 1982 the City Council took first reading of a General Plan Amendment to reduce density in the San Tomas Area. The General Plan for the applicant's property was changed to a density of less than 3.5 units per gross acre, which translates to a minimum lot size of 10,000 sq.ft. Because the proposed division creates lots of less than 10,000 sq.ft., it would not be consistent with the General Plan, and therefore Staff cannot support the request. Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Conrad Stieber, A.I.A. representing the applicant, stated that lots in this area are much smaller with some lots being less than 6,000 sq.ft. and developed at a high density. He felt that it is unreasonable to demand large lots that cannot be economically developed. -10- No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Commissioner Kotowski asked Mr. Kee if he felt there would be more of these types of applications once the revised General Plan goes into effect. Mr. Kee responded that this application is a typically example of an area that has mixed developed which includes 6,000 sq.ft. lots or smaller, as well as high density development with condominiums/townhomes. Commissioner Kasolas noted that the question presented in this application addresses his previous comments concerning whether or not we can have any additional housing built in the San Tomas Area. He continued that if the recommendation is for possible development at 3.5 units per acre, he felt that, in essence, a stop has been put on construction and redevelopment and people are going to be relegated to living as-is with no progress or improve- ment. Commissioner Kasolas added that he disagreed with the Staff recommenda- tion, however he would make a motion for approval. Motion It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas that UP 82-26 be approved. ~Mot~on dies for lack of a second. Motion RESOLUTION N0. 2160 It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2160 denying UP 82-26,__application of Mr. Richard Shuart for the division of property known as 1253 Harriet Avenue. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Meyer ABSENT: Commissioners: None Mr. Kee noted that the applicant would have the right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council within ten days. *** ZC 82-07 Public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Al Swearingen, A. Swearingen for a zone change from C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) to CPD (Condominium Planned Development) and approval of plans to allow the construction of a 6,000 sq.ft. office building on property known as 1550 S. Winchester Blvd. Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item had been considered at the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting this morning. The Committee is recommending approval of the zone change, as well as the plans. However, the Committee did wish to bring to the attention of the Commission some questions presented at this morning's meeting regarding setbacks due to dedication needs and landscaping around the building. -11- Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending the addition of a condition that the site plan be approved at staff level. Staff is concerned about having the opportunity to review revised plans which address the dedica- tion questions. Staff has no objections to the recommendation for approval. The Recording Secretary read into the minutes a letter from Dr. Wayne M. Hopp and Dr. John A. Hughes, dated December 10, 1982 pertaining to this item (attached hereto and made a part of these minutes). Commissioner Fairbanks expressed concern regarding the number of potential tenants on this site. Commissioner Kasolas asked if the Condominium Zoning District ordinance applied to office buildings. Mr. Kee noted that this section had been put back into the revised ordinance at the Council level. Commissioner Kasolas noted that it had been his understanding that office buildings were not to be addressed in the revised ordinance. He suggested that the ordinance be expanded to include the purpose and rationale for the inclusion of commercial and office buildings. There was brief discussion regarding the alignment of Winchester Boulevard at this location, with htr. Helms indicating that the City has no intentions of widening the street at this location, but rather is planning the align- ment to coincide with the curbings to the immediate north and south sections. Chairman Pleyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. No one wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Campos, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). RESOLUTION N0. 2161 It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded RESOLUTION N0. 2162 by Commissioner Howard, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2161 recommending approval of a zone change from C-1-S to CPD; and, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2162 recommending approval of plans allowing construction of a 6,000 sq.ft. office building, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet with the addition of a condition that "revised plans come back to the Staff for final approval." Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Discussion Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she is against the motion, based on the parking situation. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he is favor of the motion in that he felt there would not be more than one person per potential unit. -12- Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None Commissioner Dickson requested Staff to present an up-date regarding San Jose Camera, pertaining to the traffic situation. Commissioner Kotowski asked if it would be possible to research the records regarding complaints about the parking in this area, as well as the number of accidents. It was the consensus of the Commission to move Item No. 11, TA 82-04, to the end of this evening's agenda. *** ADDITION TO AGENDA Fire Chief James McMullen presented a slide program explaining the need for legislation governing the disposal of hazardous waste materials. _ After the presentation, Chief McMullen discussed a model ordinance that ~ is being prepared by the Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs Association, and answered questions of the Commission. ' MISCELLANEOUS PD 81-06 Continued request of Mr. Ron Troyan fora 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. Mr. Kee stated that Staff is revising its' recommendation concerning this item in view of the Commission's action this evening on the 920 E. Hamilton Avenue proposal. Staff is recommending a continuance to January 11, 1983. The applicant has requested a building permit, and does have a valid develop- ment schedule until December 31, 1982. Commissioner Kasolas asked how long it takes to process a building permit; and, if there was any assurance that Prometheus Development Company will not be asking for another continuance. Mr. Kee responded that the time frame fora building permit depends on the complexity of the project; and, there are no assurances that Prometheus will not request another continuance. Commissioner Kasolas asked if, in reference to the proposed bridge across Los Gatos Creek, the proposed bridge and the alignment of streets affect not only Mr. Troyan's property but possibly others. -13- Mr. Kee stated that the proposed bridge will possibly affect Mr. Troyan's site as well as others, although there is no definite alignment at this time. Commissioner Kasolas asked if it was true that there are no plans, drawings, etc., at this time, for the bridge proposed across Campisi Way. Commissioner Kasolas also asked if the City has any projected development schedule as far as time to have (1) finalized plans for the Prometheus Development and the bridge, and (2) a completion date for the project, if,in fact, it is approved. Mr. Kee answered that first an approval is needed. An approval will start the development schedule. Prometheus Development has until such an approval to present a development schedule. Commissioner Kasolas asked if it was true that by delaying this application on the basis of what Prometheus might do, we are basing something on speculation. Mr. Kee stated that the basis of the recommendation is a planning recommendation in that there are definite changes that have taken place since the last con- tinuance of the development schedule on this project. Commissioner Kasolas asked what the land use was on the Prometheus property (920 E. Hamilton Avenue). Mr. Kee indicated that the land use on 920 E. Hamilton Avenue is Commercial on the General Plan, with an approved use permit for a mobilehome parka Commissioner Kotowski stated that stated that he was concerned with the Staff recommendation for continuance, in that the Commission is faced with something that is purely speculative conflicting with a previously approved development, and these two factors linked with a re-development agency proposal. He con- tinued that there seems to be many unclear problems with the Prometheus develop- ment, and he is concerned that this applicant before us this evening is being held up because of a project that may or may not be built. Commissioner Kotowski noted that he had problems recommending a continuance or a denial. City Attorney Dempster stated that he agreed the City does not have approved plans for the Prometheus development, but the fact is that the City Manager has brought to the Commission some redevelopment schedules, including one of the area under discussion, so apparently the City is embarking on a study of the area. Although there are no concrete plans, the Commission has been made aware that there are changes going on in the area. All that is being said is that, in view of these changes and since this particular applicant did not process his application within the committed time frame, Staff is saying that the Commission should be made cognizant of these possibilities. Mr. Dempster continued that Staff is asking that this matter be continued so that the City does not find itself in a bind, if in fact redevelopment does take place. He stated that he did not feel that the Commission was doing anything unusual or wrong by making an individual wait. -- Mr. Kee commented that if the Commission does continue this item to January 11, they can still approve a revised development schedule if they chose to do so. If effect, there are only eleven days between December 31, 1982 and January 11, 1983 which will be the actual time the applicant will be held up. On January 11 -14- the Commission will still have the perogative to approve a revised develop- ment schedule, but some of the things will be resolved, in the Staff's ` opinion, at that time. Commissioner Kasolas asked if the General Plan has changed for Campisi Way since the initiation of Mr. Troyan's application. Mr. Kee replied that it has not. Mr. Kasolas asked if there are any General Plan hearings scheduled to present changes to Campisi Way. Mr. Kee responded that there were none, to his knowledge. Commissioner Kotowski stated that he was aware of what the redevelopment agency in Campbell is proposing. He questioned what numerical classifi- cation the Prometheus project has been given, or that area, in the order of redevelopment. Mr. Kee stated that until there is a project there is no schedule whatsoever. Mr. Dempster stated that there is no rule that states that the Commission must grant anyone an extension. He continued that suppose the Commission grants the requested extension and the site is developed, then at a later date the Commission and the Council decide that a road should go through this development. At that point, the City would be facing the prospect __ of buying a building with improvements rather than a piece of vacant land. It would seem that the Commission, as planners, need to be aware of this. Unless, your proposal is to block the redevelopment project. If that is tihe Commission's proposal then it puts the City in a very awkward position. Mr. Dempster stated that this individual took the time and delayed building his building. There is nothing in our ordinances, that he was aware, that requires this City to grant anyone continued renewals of their applications. The Commission, as planners, has an obligation to deal with the City Council in an advisory capacity, whether or not it agrees with the Council. Commissioner Howard asked if the applicant were to obtain a building permit prior to December 31, 1982, would this whole situation be mute. Mr. Kee responded that this is correct. Commissioner Kasolas commented that the point is not to block but to treat everyone fairly. Commissioner Dickson stated that the Commission must consider reasonableness. The City Council has not really given the Commission any direct comments on how to deal with these applications, and at some point the Commission will have to stand and vote. Commissioner Campos noted that this application was continued from the last -- meeting, and the applicant was told that he would have an answer at this ~ meeting. Additionally, Prometheus could ask for another continuance. __~ -15- Mr. Helms commented that Staff has received comments from consultants re- garding the impact of traffic conditions in the area, and that perhaps there are some ways that general traffic circulation in that area might be improved--specifically, a street that traverses this Campisi Way pro- perty. The Commission may wish to take this into account„ City Manager Ed Schilling stated that to keep the redevelopment in context, the Commission's decision on this item need not be affected by the planning process of the redevelopment at all. On the contrary,what the Commission should be concerned about is that there is a commercial land use designation and it is through the review of the proposed project for the i~roperty (920 E. Hamilton Avenue) that Staff has become aware of the proposal made to put a bridge across the creek as a means of improving the traffic flow in that area, facilitating any possible development of that site. Whether it is the Prometheus development or something that comes up two or three years from now, we are now of the opinion that in order to miticlate the traffic that would come from an intensive development of that site, that it may require a bridge and a connection to Campisi Way. Our role as Staff, and your role as a Commission, is to anticipate those kinds o~F needs. I would agree that there is no obligation to grant an extension to a planned development permit just because it has been done in other issues when it was requested. Mr. Schilling continued that there is a different set of circumstances now than there was two years ago when the Troyan project ryas approved. That has only come to light in the review of another projE~ct. It has come to light specifically because of redevelopment, or specifically because of Prometheus--it has come to light because we have looked apt the possible development of a piece of property that is adjacent to 90'I Campisi Way. If a project were before the Commission now, without any ~~pproval, then you would be considering that; and, this is a matter of b~isically granting or extending an approval or development schedule that has run out. Commissioner Howard stated that if this project, were developed it would, in fact, affect the property where Campisi Way curves down at the bottom of the parking area; however, he continued he did not per:>onally see that this project is going to affect the development of a road-vay through this area. The roadway may not be a straight line, however, i~t could probably be done. Mr. Kee noted that it may be that a number of road alignments are possible. Staff is asking the Commission to look at the situation. Mr. Schilling stated that certainly the interests of this developer would be considered by the City in making any kind of alignment de~:ision and the City would like to have,the opportunity to work with both developers to come up with a street pattern that would meet their needs as well as the City's. Commissioner Kasolas asked Mr. Schilling about the length of time it takes to get a building permit. Mr. Schilling stated that the length of time depends completely on the project. The City, fora project this size, sends the pl~~ns out to a plan checker we contract with, as well as other political entities that have the opportunity to review the plans. The requirements of these outsides agencies are not within the City's control. He ~~ontinued that -16- this application was submitted for plan check on or after December 6, and __ it was out of the building the next day. It is being handled as expedi- tiously as possible, even though we recognize there may be some benefit of not having a building permit issued by a certain time. We are being very careful to handle this application in the same fashion that we would any other application. Commissioner Howard stated that he would appreciate some discussion of this issue by the January 11 meeting, noting he is against all the delays. Mr. Schilling noted that the Commission may want to ask the developer what his plans are for actual development timing in that it could be germaine to that issue. At the same time, as stated earlier, should thedeveloper obtain his building permit--the issue is a mute question. If a building permit has been issued, then there will be no need for an extension of the development schedule. Mr. Schilling continued that he was not sure that Staff would have an answer at the January 11 meeting as to just exactly where the proper alignment of the roadway should be; but it would be appropriate that the .City work with the two developers, with the City's interests in mind, for a street pattern that would serve both developments and the community as a whole. That is what we will be doing if this extension is not granted--working with the developer to find the right "foot print" for that development to make it all come together. Commissioner Kasolas asked if the parking ratio for this type of development has been reduced, thereby possibly allowing a revision to the approved parking layout. Mr. Kee stated that this was correct. Mr. Ron Troyan, applicant, stated that the granting of extension by the Commission has been customary. Of the twenty-six requests over the past eighteen months, twenty-four have been approved, one has been withdrawn, and the last is his. Mr. Troyan gave some background on this property, stating that he accepted great financial responsibility to assist in putting Campisi Way through the site. His company is paying approximately $32,000 per year for the public works improvements on this undeveloped site, and it is to his advantage to begin development. Mr. Troyan spoke at length concerning the history of this proposed develop- ment. In 1979 he had approval to build a shopping center which has been completed and is filled. He assisted with the undertaking of Campisi Way accepting a financial responsibility of $170,000, which only applies to the piece of property that is under discussion this evening. He did this with the assumption that the eventual development of this property would help pay the costs. In 1980 he began working diligently, and during the process of working on the project, Prometheus Development Company came to him to ask for some ideas and cooperation to put an easement through his property so that -- they could proceed with theirs. There were many meetings with Prometheus, and Swenson Company was engaged to draw-up plans. We finally agreed on a proposal that would take care of the traffic problems, as they saw them, and we were moving along fairly well in the discussions until the issue of money came up. -17- Mr. Troyan continued that when he told Prometheus that it might cost them some money, discussion came to a halt, and they have proceeded nowhere since then. At this time, Mr. Troyan noted, his project was then approved and it was discovered after another set of architectural plans that both companies had hired Swenson Company. Capitola Knolls Investors then engaged Ruth & Going as designers and S.K. Brown as contractors. Working with both these companies in 1982 getting soils and geological tests, far beyond his expectations because of the requirements that we had to fulfill in preparing the creek bank and prepare their own foundation, and the re- quirements of the many elements within the City, we had completed the work in the summer and went out to bid, getting firm prices. This allowed us to know where we were going with the building. At this time in the chronological time of the development we noted that starting the construction would be almost impossible because of the requirement imposed upon us to do creek bank repair before we start any part of the construction. Mr. Troyan continued that when he first made his request for an extension it was a rather routine situation--going to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council, with no opposition anticipated. He added that he was quite surprised to see the objection that is being encountered this evening. He has been working diligently, and is hoping for an approval this evening. Commissioner Kotowski asked how long it would be before construction could be commenced, once the creek work is completed. Mr. Harry Lalor, Ruth & Going, stated it they have 45 days to two months of preparation in the creek bank. The Santa Clara Val-ley Water District has told them they cannot construct near the creek through the end of March. It has also been suggested that the creek may be dammed this summer, which would limit the construction time in the creek. We would proceed as soon as the water district allows--that is the initial element in all the work-- the protection of the soil and the creek bed. Commissioner Howard asked Mr. Troyan if, with the delays necessary for creek work, there would be any hardship if the decision regarding this extension was delayed to January 11. Mr. Troyan stated that the delay would cause a hardship. He added that he was told they would be given an answer this evening, and that there are no assurances that Prometheus Development will be decided upon at the January 11 meeting. Commissioner Howard asked how the creek work pertained to the building permit. Mr. Kee stated that the issuance of a building permit would activate all the conditions of approval on the planned development permit. Motion It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that PD 81-06 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 1983. -18- Discussion Commissioner Kasolas noted that, as a point of order, the applicant said he would like a decision this evening. Mr. Harry Lalor, Ruth & Going, asked the Commission if the continuance until the 11th of January indicates that their approval, which would normally have expired on the 31st of December, is also continued to January 11 so that the project continued as if nothing had happened until the 11th. Mr. Kee stated that the policy of the City, in the past, has been that the request has been filed with the Planning Department or Planning Commission and that request would be valid, even though the date ended (as of December 31, as an example). There have been situations in the past where a request has been received/filed prior to the expiration date, and that request has gone on to the Commission and Council for approval, even though the time has passed on the action. This is what is before the Commission this evening--a valid request. The applicant would not start again. Mr. Lalor asked if the building permit were not issued by the 31st of December, could it be issued on the 9th or 10th of January. Mr. Dempster noted that what Mr. Lalor was asking was that in addition to his request for a year's extension, he is also getting a continuance _ of his expiration date from December 31, 1982 to January 11, 1982. Commissioner Howard stated that a legal opinion would affect the wording of his motion. Chairman Meyer declared that the Commission would take a short recess in order that the City Attorney might render an opinion in this matter. The Commission took a break at 11:05 p.m. Commissioner Fairbanks left the meeting at this time. The meeting reconvened at 11:15 p.m. Mr. Dempster stated that the motion is to continue the request for renewal to January 11, 1983. The applicant has filed his request for a one-year extension of the development schedule in time. This request can be heard by the Commission at its meeting of January 11, 1983 at it will not jeopardize the applicant's opportunity for the one-year extension should the Commission approve this request. A continuance does not mean the applicant's permit to develop has been extended past December 31, 1982--it does not give. him an additional 11 days in which to obtain a building permit. Mr. Kee stated that what is before the Commission is a request for a revised development schedule, and the Commission is continuing this request. ---- Commissioner Howard stated that with this information he will stand on his motion for continuance to January 11, 1983. -19- Commissioner Kasolas stated that he is not in favor of the motion because the continuance is based upon speculation--a proposed bridge dependent upon a proposed development that has not been approved, and affecting several pieces of property other than Mr. Troyan's. This particular project is in accord with the General Plan. An agreement was made with the applicant that a decision would be rendered this evening, and Commissioner Kasolas stated he could see no reason to delay the request. Commissioner Dickson stated that he felt a continuance would not create hardships. Vote on Motion for Continuance AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Campos ABSENT: Commissioners: Fairbanks UP 82-07 Six-month review of use permit allowing an auto Schuman, R. 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 reported that Staff is recommending the meeting of January 11, 1983. Although satisfy several conditions of his approval, the applicant has made significant progress of approval and would support a continuance may be satisfied. a continuance of this item to the applicant has failed to Staff is of the opinion that in satisfying the conditions so that all the conditions It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that UP 82-07 be continued to January 11, 1983. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). *** UP 82-09 Six-month review of use permit allowing the con- Nash, G. version of a single family residence to an church on property known as 400 Budd Avenue in an R-1 (Single Family Residential} Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that Staff is recommending that the Commission determine that this use is appropriate. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that the Planning Commission determine that the use of a single family residence as a church at 400 Budd Avenue is an appropriate use. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). *** -20- Referral Referral back from the City Council regarding signing at the Campbell Community Center. -- It was the consensus of the Commission that this information be noted and filed. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS TA 82-04 Continued public hearing to consider the City- City-initiated initiated text amendments to Chapter 21.41 (Historic Preservation) of the Campbell Municipal Code. Chairman Meyer 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 Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that TA 82-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 11, 1983. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF OFFICERS - 1983 It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas, that Commissioner Kotowski be nominated Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1983. Motion carried unanimously (5-0-1-1). Commissioner Kotowski was elected Chairman for 1983. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that Commissioner Fairbanks be nominated as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1983. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-1). Commissioner Fairbanks was elected Vice-Chairman for 1983. An.lfll IRNMGNT It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. APPROVED: Jane P. Meyer Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda Dennis Recording Secretary