Loading...
PC Min 09/14/1982PLANNING COMP~ISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES SEPTEMBER 14, 1982 T-he 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 (7:55 p.m.), Dickson, Ho~~~ard, Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks, Meyer; Planning Director Arthur A. Kee, Principal Planner Philip Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, Acting City Attorney Brian Duckworth, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 25, 1982 It was moved by Commissioner Campos, and seconded by August 26, 1982 Commissioner Howard, that the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 24, 1982 and the minutes of the Special Hearing--San Tomas Area 4 held on August 26, 1982 be approved as submitted. Motion carried with a vote of 5-0-1-1 on both sets of minutes, with Commissioner Kasolas being absent, and Commissioner Kotowski abstaining because of absence. CONSENT CALENDAR S 80-22 Request of Mr. Richard Fish on behalf of Citti Florist Citti Florist for reinstatement of approval to allow the construction of a retail/office building on property known as 1603 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. P1r. Kee reported that at its meeting of November 18, 1980 the Planning Commission approved the applicant's plans to allow the construction of a 7,500 sq.ft. office/ retail building on the referenced site. This approval expired November 18, 1981. The applicant at this time is requesting reinstatement of this approval until August 1983. There have been no changes in the Land Use Element of the General Plan in this area since the previous approval. Staff finds the request reasonable and is recommending approval of the applicant's request. Commissioner Dickson expressed his concern that the approval for these plans expired almost one year ago; and stated that it was his feeling that these plans should be reviewed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Fairbanks stated she was in agreement with Commissioner Dickson. It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that the plans for S 80-22 be resubmitted through the.Site and Architectural .".eview Committee, then to the Commission for possible reinstatement. Motion carried with a vote of 6-0-1. *** -2- PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 82-13 Now is the time fora continued public hearing to Ragasa, R. consider the application of Mrs. Rachel Ragasa for a use permit to allow the conversion of a 4-unit apartment building into a residential care home on _ property known as 145-151 t~J. Hamilton Avenue in an R-2-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski reported that this application had been considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and the Committee is recommending approval based on Staff's recommendation. He referred the Commission to a copy of the Government Code defining residential care homes (attached hereto), noting that the applicant is using Section 80005 in describing .her facility. Chairman Meyer asked if the recommendations of the Architectural Advisor have been accepted by the applicant. Commissioner Kotowski stated that the applicant has a4reed to all redlining on the plans, as well as compliance with Title 25 with regard to the type of facility. F1r. Kee noted that the applicant has been advised that she must meet all the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet. Commissioner Kasolas entered the Council Chambers at 7:55 p.m. Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. ~1r. Richard Augustine, architect, commented that steps are being taken to meet all the requirements of the Building Department. P1r. Stafford noted that a condition of approval requires a letter from the applicant, satisfactory to the City Attorney, limiting the number of residents at this facility to less than sixteen. No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Kotowksi, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that the public hearing be closed. Plotion carried unanimously. P.ESOLUTION N0. 2137 It was moved by Commission Kotowksi, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2137 approving UP 82-13, subject to the condi~~~ns listed in the Staff Comment Sheet and to redlining of plans. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None *** -3= UP 82-19 Now is the time``for public hearing to consider the Crecelius, K. application :of Ms. Katherine Crecelius for a use permit to allow the construction of three carport structures on property known as 250 Budd Avenue (Corinthian House) in a PD (Planned Development/ High Density Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item had been before the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. The Committee is recommending approval subject to redlining of the plans. Mr. Stafford noted that the applicant is proposing to reduce the number of stalls from twenty-one to twenty, thereby providing the required setback. It is also the intent to provide additional landscaping to the setback area at both ends of the carport. Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. P~1r. Carl Bumpas, contractor, appeared before the Commission to answer any questions. Commissioner Dickson asked Mr. Kee if the surrounding property owners had been notified of this proposal. P~Ir. Kee stated that the surrounding property owners within 300 feet of this site had been notified by mail, as per the public hearing noticing procedure. No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that the public hearing be closed. Discussion Commissioner Dickson stated that it was his feeling that this application was essentially a variance because of lesser setbacks, and noted his concern Svith the Commission's allowing lesser setbacks than is normally required. RESOLUTION N0. 2138 It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2138 approving UP 82-19 subject to conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet as well as redlining of the plans. Potion carried v~ith the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks, Meye r NOES: Commissioners: Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: None - 4- UP 82-20 Now is the time to consider the application of Mr. Boyl, W. William Boyl fora use permit to allow on-sale beer and wine and approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a restaurant on property known as 980 E. Campbell Avenue and 951 Michael Drive in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) and an R-3-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item had been considered at the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting this morning. Since Staff has expressed concerns with the parking, the entrance on Campbell Avenue, and the elevations, the Committee is recommending a continuance, with the applicant's concurrence, to the Planning Commission meeting of September 28. ~1r. 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 application. Mr. John Ferrari, adjacent property owner, expressed concern regarding possible access off Michael Drive, as well as whether or not the house on the Michael Drive property was going to be removed. !1r. Stafford noted that the proposal indicated a lot split of the Michael Barbano Drive. A fence is proposed existing house is to be retained. reviewed at this morning's meeting Drive site with traffic exiting onto along the new property line, and the No one else wishing to speak at this time, Commissioner Kasolas moved, and Commissioner Campos seconded, that UP 82-20 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 28, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. It was the consensus of the Commission that Item No. 6 on this evening's agenda be considered before Item No. 5. EIR 1981-2 Consideration of revisions to the Draft EIR for the proposed Hamilton Avenue Office Complex located at 920 E. Hamilton Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/ Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee stated that Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward the amended DEIR with additions as recommended by the Public Works Department to the City Council, with a recommendation tha± it be reviewed. He added that if and when revised plans are resubmitted to the Commission, both the plans and the EIR will be noticed for public hearing. Commissioner Dickson stated that he found several issues of concern in the DEIR, including the following: The EIR suggests things that others should be doing to make the project work,~rather than suggesting ways the developer can solve the problems; the section on "View Opportunities" does not address the type of view the neighbors will have once construction i~as begun; the specific details for construction on Highway 17; traffic aspects; dangerous speculation regarding the Ainsley property. -5- Mr. Nelms reported that the Public Works Department still has some significant concerns regarding the traffic portion of the DEIR. Some of these concerns are: the widening of the bridge on Hamilton Avenue; impact of morning commute traffic going through the property; capacity of the on-ramp of Highway 17; mitigating measures are not indicated for Hamilton/Leigh intersection; and the information concerning the circulation on-site of the development. He stated that the Public Works Department does not have any substantial dis- agreement with the information that is presented, but feels that it is incomplete. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he has a serious problem with the construction aspect of .the project. He felt that the EIR may address t~~hat happens after the project is complete, but there was approximately two years during construction which has not been addressed,~and additional information was needed pertaining to each phase of the construction. It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that the Planning Commission forward the amended DEIR 1981-2 to the City Council for their review as an informational item only. Potion carried unanimously. PD 81-13 Now is the time for a continued public hearing to Prometheus consider the application of Mr. David Musgrave on Development behalf of "900 E. Hamilton Avenue--A General Partner- ship" for a Planned Development and approval of plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of three office buildings and related parking structures on property known as 920 E. Hamilton Avenue (Hamilton Avenue Mobile Home Park) in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item had been before the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and the Committee is recommending a denial without prejudice for reasons which deal mainly with time constraints. Mr. Stafford stated that this application was filed and accepted on October 15, 1981 and the City is required to take action on it within one year of acceptance, pursuant to Section 65956 of the California Government Code. The City Council is the decision-making body for this application, and if action is not taken vaithin the one-year time frame, such failure shall be deemed approval of the development project. The Planning Staff is recommending a denial without prejudice because a decision must be made by the City Council by October 15, 1982 which is insufficient time to adequately review and resolve the many issues regarding this project. Acting City Attorney Duckworth noted that a denial without prejudice is a denial with the privilege that the applicant may re-apply. Essentially the applicant is given the right to re-apply; however, the State Code does not allow the carry-over of any approvals that have already been made. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she had a concern with hearing from the applicant this evening regarding the latest submittal and the relocation plans, in that there has not been sufficient time to review this document. -6- Commissioner Kasolas stated that he felt the Commission would be in error not to consider, in the public hearing process, any information anyone present may choose to present. Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item, asking that speakers keep their presentations brief. P4r. Robert Wagner, Prometheus Development, stated that he understood the timing problem. He continued that his group has been working very closely with the redevelopment committee, the homeowners association, and Staff and that it was inportant to get as much feedback as possible this evening. Mr. Wagner noted that some of the aspects to be considered vrith this proposal are that the proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning, consistent with the surrounding land uses, the site has been accepted within the redevelopment zone, the site has immmediate freeway access, visibility, and the site is an ideal office location. Mr. Chuck Toeniskoetter, Carl N. Swensen Co., reviewed the site plan and elevations for the Commission drawing attention to several of the newest architectural features. Mr. Kee noted that Phase I as presented at this evening's meeting does not indicate a bridge over the Los Gatos Creek, but shows only access off Hamilton Avenue. Staff cannot support the terms of Phase I. Commissioner Kasolas stated that Phase I represents approximately 72% of the project, and that he was in total agreement with Staff regarding ,the con- struction of all the access portions of the project. He then questioned how the construct ion of all the ingress/egress improvements was proposed to be accomplished at this over-loaded intersection during peak traffic hours. Mr. Toeniskoetter stated that the actual construction of the project has not yet been scheduled, however he did not feel that there would be a problem with moving construction equipment in and out, or with doing construction work on Highway 17. He noted that usually equipment is brought in during non-peak traffic hours, and that this type of thing is done all the time. If the Commission would like the construction to be scheduled for the review of Staff and the Commission, he would certainly do so. Commissioner Kasolas asked Mr. Toesniskoetter if he had any objection to a denial without prejudice recommendation. Mr. Toesniskoetter stated he did not. Commissioner Kotowski asked Mr. Kee if the applicant could come back to the Staff and Commission if they were able to solve the traffic problems related to this development, in relation to the phasing of construction. Mr. Kee stated that the phasing of this development is only one of the concerns of Staff. The parking ratio cannot be supported by Staff, for one example. Additionally, there are many loose ends on this project-- Staff cannot even come close to recommending an approval this evening. Staff also cannot support phasing of this project. That is why we are recommending a denial without prejudice--in order that the applicant can work these problems out. -~- Commissioner Campos stated that the most critical issues -if this project are the relocation plan and the traffic problems expressed by Staff. He felt that more time was needed to examine these issues. Commissioner Kotowski stated that he would ask that the explanation of the design sequence not be considered this evening based on item number three in the Staff Comment Sheet which indicates that traffic considerations and phasing of the development are not resolved. Commissioner Howard stated that since this is a public hearing, the Commission must listen to what people want to say. He continued that he did feel, however, that the developers were wasting the Commission's and Staff's time. Commissioner Howard asked the developer for his feelings regarding Staff's recommendation for denial without prejudice. Mr. Tom Fleischli, Prometheus Development Co., stated that he would like to review the relocation plan for the Commission this evening. Commissioner Fairbanks stated that she did not feel it was appropriate to discuss the relocation plan since Staff nor the Commission has had time to review it. Chairman Meyer stated that the Commission would like to hear the presentation at another time, since there was no time to review the proposal prior to the meeting. Commissioner Campos asked if this proposal for location was part of the redevelopment area. Mr. Kee noted that the site (Hamilton Avenue School) is part of the proposed redevelopment area--not the proposal. However, this is an item for a detailed report from Staff relating to the redevelopment plan. This information is scheduled to come before the Commission on September 28, 1982. P1r. Fleischli stated that the relocation plan they have proposed is contingent upon a number of things, one of which is discussion with the redevelopment agency. He noted that he would like to get some thought from the Commission as to the feasibility of this plan so that he might move forward. Commissioner Kasolas stated that one of his main concerns was the feasibility of the relocation plan, since it appears that the redevelopment agency must fund it. He seriously questioned whether this is a joint venture with the City--or a private proposal. Mr. Fleischli stated that it was his feelings that a redevelopment project can be a joir.± project and it certainly is an acceptable role for the re- development agency to play. He added that when they reapply they will be able to come back with a very clear role for themselves and the redevelopment agency. Mr. John Bayer, 1498 Ramita Ct., San, Jose, spoke against the project noting concerns with the traffic congestion; the impact on Hamilton Avenue during the construction phase; the acquisition of right-of-way on Campisi Way; fire coverage for high rise buildings; noise; and ingress/egress problems to the site. -8- Mr. Joe Moerenhout, 1493 Camino Cerrano, San Jose, spoke against the project addressing the natural disasters that could befall the structures (flooding, earthquakes, train derailments). Mr. Wayne Mitsunaga, 1518 Via Cancion, San Jose, spoke against the project citing traffic problems, noise problems, and visibility problems for the residents in the area. He felt the development was too big for the site. Mr. Esau Kotkas, 250 Budd Avenue, spoke in favor of the project stating that it would be an asset to Campbell. No one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Commission Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the public hearing be closed, Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION N0. 2139 It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas, that the Planning Commission "adopt Resolution No. 2139 recommending that the City Council deny without prejudice PD 81-13. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None The Commission took a break at 9:45 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 10:00 p.m. *** At this time, it was the consensus of the Commission to take Items No. 8 and 9 on this evening's agenda, prior to consideration of Item No. 7. MISCELLANEOUS SA 82-42 Referral of signing request to reface three existing Food Plaza signs for an existing grocery store ,located on pro- perty known as 1415 W. Hacienda Avenue in an Interim (Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item had been before the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and that the applicant was briefed on the new sign ordinance that will become effective in January 1983. The Committee did suggest that t~;'s shopping center consider the possibility of pedestrian-oriented signing. h1r. Kee stated that Staff is of the opinion that the proximity of this building to the Hacienda Avenue frontage justifies a larger signing element; additionally, the size of the proposed sign does not appear to be out of proportion to the front elevation. Staff is recommending approval of signs one and three as described in the Staff Comment Sheet, and is recommending that the free-standing sign be brought into conformance by January 1, 1983 in .regards to its height. -9- It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that SA 82-42 be approved to include the following: (1) An individual letter ___ canopy measuring 4' x 32'; and (2) A refacing of a portion (approximately 42 s .ft.) of a 29' high free-standing sign identifying the shopping center; and ~3) The deletion of a canned canopy sign measuring 14.2' x 2'. Motion carried with a vote of 5-2-0, with Commissioners Dickson and Meyer voting =no". *** S 81-26 Request of Mr. Ed Cismondi for a minor modification Walters, W. to the approved elevations to allow the elimination San Jose Camera of a proposed canopy for an existing retail building located on property known as 1600 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item had been considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and that the Committee is split in their recommendation. Commissioner Kotowski stated that his recommendation is fora continuance in order that the applicant may come back with a modification of the canopy. Commissioner Campos stated that in his opinion the applicant has some very valid arguments for not erecting the canopy. These are listed in the applicant's letter (attached hereto). He added that he did not see where the addition of the canopy would approve the appearance of the building. Commissioner Kotowski noted that the Architectural Advisor is in favor of having the canopy on the building. Commissioner Howard stated that he felt the canopy would make the building even more beautiful; and, with regard to the applicant's concern about the amount of light entering the building--Commissioner Howard noted that the applicant had purposely designed the building with only one window for safety purposes. Commissioner Dickson asked why the building had been occupied if the building requirements had not been completed. Mr. Kee stated that Staff would not hold up occupancy of a building for this type of thing, because of the amount of money involved. He added that if the Commission did not approve the applicant's request for a modification to the approved plans, the canopy will be installed as per the original plans. Mr. Ed Cismondi, applicant, stated that the canopy will be installed if the Commission does not approve his request for a modification; however, he wishes to go on record as strenuously objecting. He added that the starkness of the building from the front is the architectural statement. It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, --- that the Planning Commission deny the request for a minor modification to S 81-26. Motion carried with a vote of 5-2-0, with Commissioners Campos and Meyer voting."no". *** -10- PUBLIC HEARINGS TA 82-04 Now is the time for public hearing to consider the Historic City-initiated text amendments to Chapter 21.41 Preservation (Historic Preservation) of the Campbell Municipal Code. Commissioner Kasolas asked to review the minutes of the Commission meeting at which the Historic Preservation Ordinance was originally discussed in detail. Mr. Kee stated that Staff vrould makes these minutes available. Chairman P1eyer 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 Campos, that TA 82-04 be continued to the meeting of September 28, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. Dil.lfll IR~IMFNT It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 10:32 p.m. APPROVED: Jane P. Meyer Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda Dennis Recording Secretary