Loading...
PC Min - 10/13/2009CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. OCTOBER 13, 2009 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY The Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 2009, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Vice Chair Gibbons and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Chair: Community Development Director: Planning Manager: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: Assistant Planner: City Attorney: Elizabeth Gibbons Theresa Alster Jeffrey Cristina Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Michael Rocha Bob Roseberry Mark Ebner Kirk Heinrichs Paul Kermoyan Tim J. Haley Steve Prosser Daniel Fama William Seligmann Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rocha, seconded by Commissioner Roseberry, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of September 22, 2009, were approved as submitted. (6-0-1; Chair Ebner was absent) COMMUNICATIONS 1. Two letters regarding Agenda Item No. 1. 2. Revised conditions for Agenda Item No. 2 Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS Vice Chair Gibbons read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN2009-98 Public Hearing to consider the Appeal of an Administrative Shearer, S. Decision (PLN2009-98) made by the Community Development Director to deny a Tree Removal Permit request to remove three sweetgum (Liquidambar stryaciflua) trees within the Pruneyard Vista Homeowner's Association property near 913 & 915 Apricot Avenue in an R-3-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Senior Planner Mr. Tim J. Haley, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the appellant is appealing the decision of the Community Development Director to deny a Tree Removal Permit to remove three Liquidambar trees on the north side of Apricot Avenue. • Reported that on July 22, 2009, a request was received from the HOA of a condo development on property originally developed 20 years ago for the removal of three Liquidambar trees that were part of the original landscape plan. • Advised that the Director denied this Tree Removal Permit request based on the Tree Preservation Ordinance that requires the finding(s) that a tree is either: diseased or in danger of falling; has the potential to damage the main or existing structure on the site; deprives the property owner of economic enjoyment and/or creates a financial hardship of the property. • Stated that based on the Arborist's report submitted with the Tree Removal Permit application, the Director determined that those findings could not be made and consequently denied the application. The appellant, who represents the HOA, appealed that decision. • Said that the removal request involves removing three Liquidambar trees. It was reported that these trees have caused damage to some of the sidewalk areas and curbing and the report indicates that the HOA has had to repair a sewer line in conjunction with Trees 2 and 3. There are plans to repair a wall and foundation elements of a garage in an adjacent building located near Tree 1. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 3 • Informed that the Planning Commission has received correspondence from residents in close proximity to these trees. They are asking the Planning Commission to uphold the Director's decision in regards to retaining these trees. These residents don't feel that the damage associated with the buildings is attributed to these trees. They're asking that the trees be retained as a part of the development. • Added that the HOA is trying to provide a preventative measure in terms of protecting the main buildings as well as the utilities within the development and feel that it is appropriate to remove the trees and replace them with three 24-inch box trees. Vice Chair Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Alison Dunford, Resident on Apricot Avenue: • Said that she is here to ask the Planning Commission to uphold the denial of this Tree Removal Permit. • Said that she is in a unique position as she lives in the unit right next to Tree 1 and her garage is right next to Trees 2 and 3. • Reported that the HOA never made any claims about sewer backups and damage until after the original Tree Removal Permit was denied. Now they are saying it's causing this extra damage. She said that she would say that it's not. • Advised that the owner of the garage that has had some water damage doesn't feel that the tree (Tree 1) is causing it. Instead, there was a sprinkler problem that was resolved. There is also an outside hose faucet connected to the outer garage wall, which could be contributing to the damp. That owner told her personally that he would not want to see that tree taken down. He has sent an email to this Planning Commission pleading not to have Tree 1 cut down. • Informed that she herself had sent a letter concentrating on saving Tree 1. She also has information about Trees 2 and 3. • Stated that the sewer outlet near Trees 2 and 3 was causing problems. The HOA did nothing about that sewer problem until she called the City's Code Enforcement. The problem was found and was fixed. Since the repair in 2007, there have been no problems with this sewer outlet. At the time of repair, no one said that these trees were causing sewer backups. • Expressed concern that the HOA has now presented a new appeal based on erroneous and/or inflated information. • Said she is finding herself to be in a remarkable situation here, since she is a part of this HOA. The HOA is not actually doing what the residents want to see happen. • Added that she knows that several of the people that she has talked to want to see the trees stay. There is no indication that these trees are causing the extent of damage that the HOA now claiming. There may be some curb damage but they've also said there's a trip hazard outside her condo, where she's never tripped. • Said that she read the Arborist's report and appeal. She's read the various work orders they've had for plumbing at the sewer outside 913 Apricot. She said that none of this convinces her that these trees need to come down. They're beautiful trees and they really should stay where they are. The HOA is supposed to speak Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 4 for us (owners). Instead it is sour grapes rather than actual fact that their claims have merit. • Stated that she would like to see all three trees stay. Commissioner Rocha asked Ms. Alison Dunford why the HOA would be so interested in removing these trees if they are not the cause of the sewer problems. Ms. Alison Dunford: • Pointed out that the HOA was originally saying that it was because these trees were cracking the curb and the pavement. • Added that the HOA is now saying that the roots are invasive into the sewer. That claim was after she had called them about not wanting to see these trees come down. • Reminded that in 2007, they fixed whatever problem there was with the sewer. • Recounted that between 2003 and 2007, she had the sewer back up eight or nine times without the HOA properly responding until she had called in Code Enforcement. That's when they got involved. • Added that at that time no one said that these trees had to be cut down to fix the sewer problem. Commissioner Rocha said what he is trying to get at is this - is there something that is not in the report that Ms. Alison Dunford feels is the HOA's motivation other than the cost savings on future repairs that the HOA might have by the removal of these trees? Ms. Alison Dunford replied no, not that she knows of. Mr. Mark Kelleher, Resident on Apricot Avenue: • Said that his home is located across the road from this development site. • Explained that he wrote a letter that was included in the packet. • Said that the reason he wrote is that he was getting concerned about the number of trees that were coming down in his own HOA and in the area in general. It is a bit of a concern when mature trees that have a value of $30,000 each get removed. That represents about $90,000 worth of trees being removed for about $2,000 worth of plumbing and curb repairs. • Said that he has questions about what the CEQA statement in the report means. • Added that since Mr. Canon's explanation for the water in his garage doesn't match the HOA's explanation, what gives there? • Reported that his HOA across the road had a similar situation. Their curb was cracking supposedly caused by two really nice magnolia trees. Those trees were removed and some "twigs" were planted in their place. Twelve months later, in August, they replaced the curbing. By October, it was cracked again despite the tree removal. Mr. Boris Voh, Resident on Apricot Avenue: • Said that his neighbor, Mr. Canon, is at work and he will represent him briefly this evening. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 5 • Said that this request for tree removal represents another "logging" expedition. • Pointed out that projects of this size need approval by a majority of owners within an HOA according to the CC&Rs. This Board obviously ignored that. • Said that Tree 1 is located near Mr. Canon's garage. There was a problem with the sprinkler next to his wall. Water was trickling into his garage from both sides. That sprinkler was removed several years ago. There are some residual stains on the cinder block inside the garage but that harms no one. There is no correlation whatsoever with Tree 1 and problems with this garage. • Said of the other two trees (2 and 3), while there were a number of repairs over the years, finally the sewer problem was corrected two years ago by digging out and replacing a six to seven foot section of rusty pipe in the sewer line and the problem was resolved. Ms. Dunford has had no problems since that time. • Stated that he has to question the need to remove three trees here. • Pointed out that this is a relatively new Board with relatively new owners who have little history or knowledge of the way things should be done. • Said that it takes 20 to 30 years for newly planted "twigs" to mature into trees like these. • Said that these trees provide day-long shade for the Units J and K. • Stated that there is no justification of the correlation between these trees and the sewer and/or water damage as the Association is claiming. • Reported that Commissioner Reynolds came in person and inspected the property and agreed. • Said that this is a 30-year-old complex. Things do crack but that doesn't harm anyone. That's plain nonsense. • Said that there was already another tree removal several months earlier this year where they claimed structural damage. He said that he went and spoke to the resident who owns the garage impacted at that time. She said that no one came to talk with her. She had no damage that she was aware of. There were no cracks in the wall, no water seepage, nothing. • Said that he also went to talk with the resident above who showed him the thermal gap in the concrete pad in the first floor unit, which is what was being referred to as structural damage. Commissioner Alster: Stated her appreciation of Mr. Boris Voh's investigative work. It's very impressive. Asked for details about the rusty pipe that was previously removed from the sewer line. Mr. Boris Voh said that it was a six to seven foot rusty section of pipe that was dug out and replaced. Rust build up is the likely reason that this sewer line would occasionally back up. Once it was repaired, there have been no problems since. He added that there was no root intrusion at all. Commissioner Alster asked Mr. Boris Voh how he found out about the rusty pipe. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 6 Mr. Boris Voh said that Ms. Alison Dunford told hm. He added that she had talked to the final repair crew. They told her there was no tree impact. It was just a rusty pipe that they replaced. Ms. Julie Mann, Resident on Apricot Avenue: • Advised that one of the reasons that she bought into this complex is because of the trees. There is a big redwood tree right outside her front door. • Stated that to her these trees add to the value of the development. • Reported that a Board member was complaining about the balls that drop from these trees, saying that they presented a slip hazard. • Declared her opinion on that as being, "Oh, please. Life has dangers." • Said that she is really concerned about cutting down trees. • Said that she bought here 21 years ago. While it used to be an oven at the back wall, since the trees have gotten tall enough they offer shade and make it livable. • Said that removal of these trees would really impact the quality of living there. • Added that cutting the trees down and planting new ones could take decades for them to grow. She said that she is running out of decades. She doesn't have 20 to 30 years to wait for the trees to grow up to make it a nice place again. • Stated that she is really opposed to the removal of any trees unless they are dead, dying or diseased. There's just no reason to do it. Commissioner Alster asked if the balls that fall from the tree had been given as a reason for removal. Ms. Julie Mann said that was what was articulated as a reason to replace these trees with different trees. She said that she herself says just sweep them up. It's not a big deal. Vice Chair Gibbons asked if an HOA representative is here wishing to speak. There was no one present from the HOA. Vice Chair Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Alster: • Said that she was impressed with the residents and their investigative efforts particularly on the issue of pipe rust that was instead blamed on the tree roots. • Said that she originally had read the service repair reports and thought that these trees had to be removed as they're a hazard to the plumbing. • Stated that she had thought that the HOA could only pay so many times for the same repairs. • Added that it now seems that these trees are just an inconvenience as they have those balls. However, we don't really know that is their position since there is no HOA representative here this evening to address it. • Said that these are older trees but they are not diseased. • Advised that she is now leaning toward leaving the trees. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 7 Commissioner Rocha: • Said that during his site visit to Apricot he didn't see any serious damage. • Added that he is inclined to support the denial of this Tree Removal Permit. Given what he is hearing tonight and what he saw on his site visit, it is difficult to support this removal. • Said that he is pleased that this HOA did properly pursue this Tree Removal Permit process. Commissioner Reynolds: • Thanked the Planning staff for the packet they provided. It was very informative. • Expressed appreciation for the comments by residents this evening. • Reported that he had made a site visit the previous day and looked at everything carefully. He said that he didn't see any damage near Tree 1 or 2 at all. There is no evidence of stairs being lifted. The curb cracks were found all around the complex and not just isolated to the areas around these three trees. • Said that he did see some damage from Tree 3. It was actually lifting up a utility box (electric junction box) that could potentially need to be repaired or replaced at a later date. He said that he did not know where that junction box feeds and whether it's to the units themselves or the common lighting areas but it's not significant and probably will be some time off before it needs to be repaired or replaced. • Added that he did not see any mitigating circumstances to require removal of these trees. • Stated that the work orders that he did review included no invoices that explain what plumbing work was done and what was the cause of the blockage to the plumbing. We're basically reading one side of the story and not getting what was repaired or replaced. • Reported that he did try to make contact with the four people who wrote letters and did speak over the phone with two of them to get their side of the story. He said that he asked them what alternatives they felt there were going forward if they really wanted the trees to remain. • Advised that he is also inclined to uphold the denial of the permit request. Vice Chair Gibbons: • Advised that she has a personal love-hate relationship with the liquidambar tree on the property next door to her. • Said that she has more of those little sticker balls in her yard than her neighbor does but they have fun with them and both sides just pick them up. • Stated that she does understand the issues of the lifted up sidewalks, shallow roots and the balls. These are not the easiest or most lovable trees but they are beautiful and mature trees. • Said that what she is hearing is that this is really an issue within this condo complex to address the long-term needs of the landscaping and the replacement program. Coming forth with a complete plan is the reasonable way to go forward. • Added that the Commission is at a disadvantage without the HOA representative being here this evening. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 8 Commissioner Reynolds asked for comments on the CEQA issue raised earlier this evening. City Attorney William Seligmann said that the particular exemption excludes the exception for mature "scenic" trees. In the opinion of staff, we are not dealing with scenic trees, which in staff's view is like redwoods that one would go to see in a park area or something like that. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roseberry, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3962 denying an appeal and upholding the Administrative Decision (PLN2009-98) made by the Community Development Director to deny a Tree Removal Permit request to remove three sweetgum (Liquidambar stryaciflua) trees within the Pruneyard Vista Homeowner's Association property near 913 & 915 Apricot Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alster, Cristina, Gibbons, Reynolds, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Ebner ABSTAIN: None Vice Chair Gibbons advised that this action is final. She said that she would like to have additional discussion later on in the meeting regarding the number of trees coming down in this area. *** Vice Chair Gibbons read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: 2. PLN2009-58 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Mike Strouse, for Strouse, M. Mid-Way Signs on behalf of Campbell Church of Christ/Campbell Christian Schools, for a Sign Application (PLN2009-58) to allow a manual readerboard sign for a public assembly use on property owned by Campbell Church of Christ located at 1075 W. Campbell Avenue in the P-F (Public Facilities) and R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning Districts. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Assistant Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Sign Permit to allow the construction of a manual readerboard sign to serve Campbell Church of Christ and Campbell Christian Schools. The project site is on two parcels fronting Campbell Avenue at the corner with Victor Avenue. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 9 • Said that the proposed sign is shown within a stucco monument. The sign would have three internally illuminated signage elements including a double row of channel letters in two panels. The entire sign would total 28.5 square feet of sign area with the readerboard portion equaling 14.5 square feet. The sign is proposed to be located on Campbell Avenue, west of the intersection with Victor. The sign, including the base, would extend 11 feet within the 15-foot landscaping strip along Campbell Avenue. • Reported that the Sign Ordinance requires that a manual readerboard for a public assembly use meet the requirements for land uses that are public, semi-public or institutional. • Said that this proposed sign meets the required minimum fixed seating standard as well as the applicable sign area, height and design requirements. However, there may be some question regarding the proposed location. To ensure that the sign is not placed within the public right-of-way, staff has provided a recommended change to the conditions of approval requiring verification of property lines. • Recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving this sign. Commissioner Alster presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this item at its meeting on September 22, 2009, and had the following comments: o Remove the banner located on the fence along Campbell Avenue. o Verify that the sign would not be located within the public right-of-way. o Trim or remove the bushes at the corner as they represent a potential sight obstruction. o Explain why the sign is located at the corner. Vice Chair Gibbons asked staff to respond to those comments. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that the applicant has indicated that they will remove the banner. • Said that staff was informed by the applicant that the bushes at the corner serve to screen the children away from the sidewalk. He said he would work with the applicant to find something more appropriate that doesn't diminish the sight lines. • Stated that the applicant would explain why they are placing the sign at the corner. • Said that as to the issue of the right-of-way, there is a question as to the width of the sidewalk. The Public Works Department has indicated that the right-of-way extends to about 10 feet from the face of curb. So depending on the exact width, the sign where it is now may or may not be within aright-of-way by within the margin of a foot. • Said that staff will try to deal with that within the Building Permit process and work with Public Works to find the exact location of that property line. That may require the applicant to shrink the sign a little bit, perhaps cut off some of the edges, but nothing too major. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 10 Vice Chair Gibbons asked if the applicant is aware of those situations or conditions. Planner Daniel Fama replied yes. Vice Chair Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Gary Anderson, Midway Sign Company: • Said that the reason for placing the sign on that particular curvature of the street is that it is the best place for visibility from both sides. It's approximately 60 feet from the corner so it gives plenty of setback from the corner so there's no interference whatsoever with traffic. • Said that as far as removing the bush or shrub located there, it's already been decided that removal would be no problem. • Stated that the sign is very attractive. It fits well with the neighborhood and with the structure of the church. • Pointed out that up to this point they really had no effective site identification. The sign that they did have there is set way back low on the ground within too many trees. You really couldn't see it there when passing by. • Added that for many years he didn't know the church even existed at this location. • Assured that this is a perfect location for the sign. It was designed very well to fit into the neighborhood. Vice Chair Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Reynolds: • Reported that he went down to review the site and actually drove right by it the first time, having completely missed the sign that is currently there. • Stated that he walked around the site and it looks like this is going to be an exceptional location for the sign. It is very fitting for the architecture that is currently there. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rocha, seconded by Commissioner Alster, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3963 approving a Sign Application (PLN2009-58) to allow a manual readerboard sign for a public assembly use on property owned by Campbell Church of Christ located at 1075 W. Campbell Avenue, with the modified conditions, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alster, Cristina, Gibbons, Reynolds, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Ebner ABSTAIN: None Vice Chair Gibbons advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 11 *** Vice Chair Gibbons read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows: 3. PLN2009-82 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Freddy Seen, on PLN2009-83 behalf of Banducci Associates Architects, Inc., for a Site and PLN2009-110 Architectural Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit PLN2009-111 (PLN2009-82) to allow the construction of a 9,038 square foot Seen, F. building with automotive repair uses; a Variance (PLN2009-83) to allow reduced setbacks; a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2009-110) to allow the removal of two protected trees; and a Fence Exception (PLN2009-111) to allow asix-foot high fence within a front setback on property owned by Mr. John Kirkorian located at 175 Cristich Lane in a M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Steve Prosser, Associate Planner Mr. Steve Prosser, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking a Site and Architectural Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of an approximately 9,000 square foot commercial structure to be used for automotive repair on a vacant parcel located within the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. • Said that the applicant is also requesting a Variance to allow construction of a structure with a reduced side setback; a Tree Removal Permit to remove two trees currently located on the property; and a Fence Exception to allow the construction of a six-foot wrought iron fence within the first 15 feet of the property frontage. • Explained that this property is a currently vacant parcel located on the west side of Cristich Lane, north of E. McGlincy Lane and south of Campbell Technology Parkway, within the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. • Said that the subject parcel fronts a private drive (Cristich Lane) where there is currently no curb, gutter or sidewalks. Highway 17 borders on the west with industrial and serve commercial uses bordering the property on the north, south and east. • Said that the proposed project requires the following entitlements: a Conditional Use Permit and Site and Architectural Review Permit to allow the construction of a new commercial building with the establishment of an automotive repair use within an M-1 Zoning District; a Variance to allow a reduced side setback; a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of two protected ash trees and a Fence Exception to allow the installation of a six-foot wrought iron fence where a 3.5 foot fence would be allowed. • Said that the proposed site plan illustrates construction of a new single-story masonry building with two tenant spaces located along the northern property line. The Public Works Department is requiring a condition of approval for the dedication of right-of-way and a deferred street improvement agreement to accommodate future installation of curbs, gutters and sidewalks and landscaping within this future Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 12 right-of-way. The proposed project includes 14 percent landscaping where 12 percent is required. • Stated that staff recommends approval of the proposed landscaping as it appears to meet the intent of the Ordinance while retaining as many parking spaces possible for the proposed site design. • Informed that the proposed business hours for automotive uses is 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily. At no time shall customers be on site where auto repair activities occur prior to 8 a.m. or after 6 p.m. • Provided project data as follows: Net lot is .57 acres. Building coverage is 37 percent. Paving coverage is 49 percent with landscaping at 14 percent. The FAR is .37 where a maximum of .40 is allowed. The parking provided is 26 spaces. Zoning is M-1 (Light Industrial), which allows auto repair uses with a conditional Use Permit. This proposed project is consistent with the site's General Plan Land Use designation of Light Industrial. • Said that the proposed design is of a contemporary industrial commercial block building with a flat roof. The architectural elevations depict a modern one-story commercial building with three distinct block styles providing some variation to a standard block wall. The wall height of the tenant space located along the street frontage has been lowered and includes a suspended aluminum awning to provide some articulation along the street elevations and to minimize the bulk of the building as viewed from the street. • Explained that vehicular access to the site would be provided via one new driveway located to the south of the proposed building near the parcel's southeast corner. • Said that required parking for auto repair uses and office uses for this project would be 36 parking spaces. The proposed project is providing 26 parking spaces. Therefore a parking adjustment would be required. • Said that staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a parking adjustment for the proposed project based on the Planning Commission's preliminary acceptance to modify the parking demand for automotive uses per the Parking Study Session feedback of their Study Session meeting held on September 8, 2009, at which time staff proposed an adjustment of the City's parking requirements as follows: Two parking spaces per vehicle service bay plus one parking space per 225 square feet of non-service gross floor area. • Added that an analysis of the proposed project using staff's recommended parking requirement results in a parking demand of just under 20 parking spaces for both the proposed and future automotive uses. Although eight of the parking spaces are tandem, which are located to the rear of the structure and behind the security gate, a coordinated effort to move the vehicles in and out of the tandem spaces will achieve a realistic parking configuration. In this regard, staff is confident, based on the type of use presented, a parking adjustment is appropriate. • Reported that the applicant is also requesting approval to store vehicles that are currently under repair in the secured tandem parking area behind the proposed commercial building. Staff is supportive of this request and has added a condition of approval requiring that all vehicles under repair that are stored outside during non-business hours must be screened from public view. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 13 • Said that the applicant is proposing to remove two protected ash trees. Staff has reviewed the Tree Removal Permit applicant and arborist's report and concurs with the arborist's recommendation for removal. Staff has included as a condition of approval the planting of replacement trees. • Explained that the proposed project requires the approval of a Variance for the failure to meet minimum side yard setback requirements for the northern property line. The applicant has submitted a response defending the request for a Variance with a statement on how the five Variance findings may be met. Staff has reviewed the applicant's statements and findings and has found that the Planning Commission could support the granting of a Variance for the proposed project based on the fact that more than 60 percent of the existing industrial buildings within the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District were constructed at or close to zero side setbacks. Support for that is in the narrative of the staff report and in the findings (attachment 2). • Added that even though staff has found that it can support a Variance, staff has also found that there is a potential alternative design available that may avoid a side yard setback Variance while meeting the current site development standards. The alternative site plan includes the construction of two new buildings that provide service bay openings that are not visible from public view. • Reported that SARC reviewed this project on September 22, 2009, and their comments with staff responses have been provided in the staff report. • Said that staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the proposed project Categorically Exempt pursuant to the exemption pertaining to infill development. • Recommended that the Planning Commission adopt resolutions approving a Conditional Use Permit/Site and Architectural Review Permit; Variance, Tree Removal Permit and Fence Exception. Commissioner Alster presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this item at its meeting on September 22, 2009, and had the following comments: o Recommended that staff provide the meeting minutes and relevant documents as reference materials for the previously approved Variance, which is in close proximity of the proposed project site and located at 813 Cristich Lane. o Recommended that the applicant revise the required Variance findings. SARC acknowledged the merits of a Variance request for properties in the project area based on the consistency of existing and proposed uses and the historic development pattern of the Zoning District. Vice Chair Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Vice Chair Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 14 Commissioner Roseberry: • Said that he thought this was a good project. It requires a few exceptions but, in context of location, site and uses in that area, they are relatively minor. • Added that this area is a hodgepodge or eclectic. This project seems like movement in the right direction. • Reiterated that he thinks this is a great project and he hopes to see it move forward . Commissioner Rocha: • Offered a couple of observations. • Pointed out that it is typical in construction of most industrial buildings to have a skylight built into the roof and he doesn't see any roof plan with this project. With four roll up doors, there would be at least four skylights, which would serve to provide internal natural lighting. • Said that in terms of height of building, this one is proposed at 30 feet. • Questioned if there is some thought to the possibility of adding a mezzanine somewhere down the road? • Opined that 30 feet is a pretty high parapet. • Said that as far as construction materials, he believed that the Kaeding building did something to mitigate the appearance of the concrete blocky building. • Advised that he is not warm and fuzzy with the lot line adjustment and that he is not a fan of tandem parking. • Pointed out that there are 26 total parking spaces, including the eight tandem spaces. There are 10 employees for this business and that is not counting the 1,700 square feet of space that is left for rental at another date. • Said he hopes the applicant could address some of these questions. Vice Chair Gibbons asked staff to verify that there would be two fences on this property one serving as a rear security fence and the second a front security fence. Is that correct? Planner Steve Prosser replied yes, that's correct. Vice Chair Gibbons re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Dan Brodnik, Project Representative, appeared before the Commission. Commissioner Rocha asked Mr. Dan Brodnik if he had given any thought to the skylights or is it just easier to have the flat roof without them. He added that he could fully appreciate that this is just a body shop. Mr. Dan Brodnik said that they really haven't considered that yet because they were kind of directed to the facade and not really the roof structure at this stage. In a general sense, they wanted to be sure that they could get through this process before they actually put structural details together. He added that they could absolutely Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 15 consider skylights if they would serve to cut down on energy costs. That would be a big deal. Commissioner Rocha said that they've come a long way with skylights. He asked Mr. Dan Brodnik about the 30 foot building height. Mr. Dan Brodnik explained that this auto repair facility is going to have lifts to lift vehicles up in order for automotive repair work to be performed. There's not going to be pits in there so cars are going to be lifted up to be repaired by workers underneath them. That's why the building height is necessary. Commissioner Rocha said that 30 feet is still high. Mr. Dan Brodnik explained that this shop will also be working on buses. Commissioner Rocha said okay, so the height of the bus would be in addition. That makes sense. In terms of the actual facade, to his eye this varied block style is rather busy. He asked Mr. Dan Brodnik if he had considered something else like a stripe. Mr. Dan Brodnik: • Responded that they were not stuck on this particular look. It's just something that the architect tried to come up with to give the building a little pizzazz so it didn't look so industrial. • Added that they haven't yet totally ruled out atilt-up building but its right there at the threshold whether to use tilt-up or block construction. • Continued that right now it looks like for anything under 10,000 square feet, from a construction standpoint, that block is cheaper so that's why they're going that way. Who knows? It could still be a tilt up building. • Said that they are not in love with this one look but just thought it was more aesthetically pleasing than a standard block building. Commissioner Rocha asked about the lot line. Mr. Dan Brodnik said that they looked at that. The best way to do this site layout was to look at getting vehicles into the building. They need a 20-foot wide driveway for Fire access so they would lose parking spots with other layouts. By shoving this building onto one side that gives them more opportunity to put non-tandem parking and also to be able to get bigger vehicles in there whether it's a truck or a bus and whether this is used as an industrial building or a vehicle repair shop. Commissioner Rocha said that he would suggest that once a building goes down the automotive repair path it will likely remain automotive. Mr. Dan Brodnik said yes, they know that but they also have to look at it. That's what their ultimate goal is. They have a tenant in line to take the place - to move into this building - so they're ready to move forward with that. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 16 Commissioner Roseberry said he wants to make the point that the Commission is approving a specific project design so the look of it is a part of what is being approved. So when Mr. Dan Brodnik states that their design is in flux - that's a little scary. Mr. Dan Brodnik said that they could change it but don't want to. Now, block is cheaper. Commissioner Roseberry cautioned Mr. Dan Brodnik that if he changes his mind pm design later on the project might have to come back to the Commission. Mr. Dan Brodnik said he appreciates that. Commissioner Roseberry said that the other point he just wanted to bring up for Commissioner Rocha is that Condition 43 requires a LEED checklist. Those types of energy efficient options (like skylights) are going to get caught in that process. Commissioner Rocha said that if the Commission was talking about Dell Avenue this would be a very different standard. Given this area, this building will probably be one of the better looking buildings on the street. He said he would still like to see something a little more advanced but he thinks he could live with this. Commissioner Roseberry said that while he is not a fan of tandem parking this is probably the best use of tandem parking when they have someone who has the keys to every vehicle while it's under their control and they know how to manage the tandem parking. Commissioner Rocha said that the one thing that he would not want to see would be for this to become a graveyard. He does not want to see vehicles scattered here and there in disrepair. He doesn't want to see this area become an overflow area. Mr. Dan Brodnik said no. He added that they have had a conversation specifically about that with their potential tenant. He assured that they don't want that to occur either as the landlord and property owner. He said that this operator's idea is that he wants to have most vehicles inside their building for security reasons. He said that it would not be storage as this business does not make money storing vehicles. Commissioner Reynolds said that he likes this building design and thinks it's beautiful, especially when comparing it with what's out there right now. He said he would like to see some hint or suggestion of solar power if that's possible. Mr. Dan Brodnik said that they are always looking at that possibility with their projects although they haven't done it yet. They haven't gone that far with the specifics for this project until they get through this Planning process. Commissioner Gibbons said that one of the policies that the City has put in place recently is the LEED checklist that encourages, to the extent that the City is able, applicants to incorporate all kinds of appropriate and innovative energy conservation Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 17 methods. Solar might be one but at this point we don't typically have the ability to make a requirement of that. Director Kirk Heinrichs said that adopting a Green Ordinance is on the Department's work plan and should be coming forward. Mr. Dan Brodnik said that on the properties they own, they are going around and updating exterior lighting. One reason is to reduce energy use and to bring down the cost. So they are actually very aware of energy conservation and it's something they are very keen on doing. Vice Chair Gibbons: • Said she wanted to make a couple of comments. • Stated that she thought this was a good project and the right project for the neighborhood. It's consistent with what has been done on other properties in this neighborhood and she is very comfortable with that. • Added that what she'd like to do is make it clear that there are five requirements for granting a Variance. She said that she read the staff report and the findings and thinks they're a little unclear. What she is basically trying to say is that while she can leave them standing the way they are in this case, the most important thing that she is trying to point out is the City does not have an obligation to allow a property owner to build anything that they feel is the right use on the property. It is to balance the applicant's use of the property while being consistent with Ordinances and Zoning and the surrounding properties. • Said she just wanted the record to be very clear that this is being approved and basically the five findings are more or less being met on the premise that it is consistent with the neighborhood. • Said that she just personally wants to be very clear with that point. She does not want this to set a precedent where someone could come afterwards and say they want to build something because you let someone else build it because that's what they wanted to build there. That's really not what the Commission is saying here. Commissioner Rocha said that the language in the report reads that this project "could" meet the standard. He agreed that each new applicant needs to understand that each project is analyzed on a case-by-case basis. He said he concurs with the comments of Vice Chair Gibbons. Vice Chair Gibbons re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roseberry, seconded by Commissioner Cristina, the Planning Commission took the following actions: ^ Adopted Resolution No. 3964 granting a Site and Architectural Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit (PLN2009-82) to allow the construction of a 9,038 square foot building and establish automotive repair uses; and Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for October 13, 2009 Page 18 ^ Adopted Resolution No. 3965 granting a Variance (PLN2009-83) to allow reduced side setbacks; and ^ Adopted Resolution No. 3966 granting a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2009-110) to allow the removal of two protected trees; and ^ Adopted Resolution No. 3967 granting a Fence Exception (PLN2009-111) to allow asix-foot high fence within a front setback; on property owned by Mr. John Kirkorian located at 175 Cristich Lane, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alster, Cristina, Gibbons, Reynolds, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Ebner ABSTAIN: None Vice Chair Gibbons advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The Director's Report was accepted as submitted. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m. immediately to a Study Session and subsequently to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of October 27, 2009. A SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: Elizabeth Gibbons, Vice Chair ATTEST: Kirk Heinrichs, Secretary