Loading...
PC Min 05/25/1982PLANNING COMMISSIO~d ` CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MPY 25, 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, Meyer; Planninn Director Arthur A. Kee, Principal Planner Philip J. Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, Acting City Attorney Brian J. Duckworth, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Commissioners: Campos, Fairbanks APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 11, 1982 It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 1982 be approved as submitted. tlotion carried unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR TS 82-3 Tentative Subdivision Map: Lands of Orchard City Orchard City Properties. APB! 413-F-15, 92, & 99 (150 E. Properties Campbell Avenue). TS 82-4 Tentative Subdivision Map: Lands of Lampe Lampe, J. APN 413-43-164 (300 Union Avenue). S 81-18 Request of P1r. Jack Schenk for an extension of TS 81-15 a previous approval to allow the construction Whitestar Corp. of 27 condominium units on property known as 123 and 135 Redding Road in an R-t1-S (Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District. PM 82-07 Tentative Parcel Map: Lands of 0. J. tlitchell tlitchell, O.J. APB! 404-30-13, 14, 15 (945 & 954 Emory Avenue, 455 4J. Sunnyoaks Avenue). PM 82-06 Tentative Parcel t1ap: Lands of Dougherty Dougherty, R. APN 403-16-13 (1361 Burrows Road). It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas, that the Consent Calendar be approved as per Staff Recommendations. lotion carried with a vote of 4-1-2 (Commissioner Dickson voting "no" on S 81-18, PM 32-07, and PM 82-06). Staff recommendations: Approval of TS 82-3, S 81-18, PM 82-07, Pt1 82-06; continuance of TS 82-4. -2- PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 82-09 Now is the time for a public hearing to consider Nash, G. the application of P1r. Gary Plash on behalf of the West Valley Church of Christ for a use permit to allow the conversion of a single family residence to a church on property known as 400 Budd Avenue in an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski reported that the applicant had met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and that the Committee is recommending a continuance to the meeting of June 8 in order that the applicant could better structure his plans. Mr. Kee noted that a letter had been received from L~1r. Dennis Caldwell ~f 610 Emory Avenue in support of this conversion (attached hereto and made a part of these minutes). 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 Howard, that UP 82-09 be continued to the meeting of June 8, 1982. Motion carried (5-0-2). PD 82-01 Now is the time for a continued public hearing Hedley, W. to consider the application of ~1r. b!illiam Hedley for a Planned development Permit and approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the conversion of a single- family residence to a 1,320 sq.ft. commercial/ professional building on property known as 850 E. Campbell Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/ Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item had been considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and the Committee is recommend- ing approval. Mr. Stafford noted that the applicant is agreeable to percentage of the square footage for storage purposes be office space of approximately 600 sq.ft. with the committed to storage use only. This will result in a ment with only five spaces needed. The applicant has tion of the Commission pertaining to the retention of he might have an enclosed area for his vehicles. maintaining a certain only. The result will valance of space being revised parking require- requested the considera- the garage in order that 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, it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously.. - 3- RESOLUTION N0. 2112 It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2112 recommending approval of P~ 82-O1 subject to the conditions as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet, with the removal of Condition S: "Applicant to submit plan in- dicating relocation of garage for approval of the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit; or garage to be removed and parking layout installed as red-lined." Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Campos, Fairbanks PD 82-02 Now is the time for a continued public hearing Elliott, S. to consider the application of Mr. Stanton Elliott on behalf of P1r. Richard Saliqa for a Planned Development Permit and approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of a 5,838 sa.ft. office building on property known as 34 S. Second Street 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. The Committee is recommending approval, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. Mr. Kee noted that Staff is also recommending approval of this application. 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, it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION N0. 2113 It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2113 recommending approval of PD 82-02 subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried by the follow- ing roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Campos, Fairbanks - 3- UP 82-05 Now is the tir~P for a continued public hearing Brown, lJ. to consider the application of ~1r. Warren Brown for a use permit to allow a 400 sq.ft. living unit in a building approved for industrial use on property known as 1075 Florence flay in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. Y.ee indicated that the applicant has requested that this item be heard by the Commissioner betwee n 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. due to a conflict in scheduling. It was the consensus of the Commission to move ahead with the next item on the agenda, and return to this item later in the evening. UP 82-04 Now is the time for a continued public hearing Russo, J. to consider the application of Mr. Joseph Russo fora use permit to allow the establishment of a private club and the construction of an accessory building on property known as 175 E. Campbell Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/ Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski stated that the Site and Architectural Review Committee considered this item this morning. The Committee is still having concerns with the amount of landscaping that currently exists on the site and the amount of landscaping that is being proposed, as well as the compatibility of the architectural style. The Committee is recommending_ a continuance with the concurrence of the applicant. Mr. Kee stated that Staff is in concurrence with this recommendation. Commissioner Kasolas added that another concern of the Committee is that this building is in the downtown area where parking and traffic is already a problem and the presented plans include a 10 foot driveway, less than stan- dard. Although the existing driveway is adequate for the proposed use, if the use were to change, the driveway might not be adequate for ingress/egress purposes. Commissioner Kotowski stated that the Commission may wish to consider putting a time limit on the approval, if and when it is granted. This would enable the Commission to review the use should the situation change in the downtown area. 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 Dickson, that UP 82-04 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 8, 1982 in order that the applicant might address the concerns reviewed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Motion carried unanimously. -4- PD 81-13 Now is the time for a continued public hearing to Prometheus consider the application of Mr. David ~lusgrave Developr,~ent on behalf of "900 E. Hamilton Avenue--A General Partnership" for a Planned Development Permit and approval of plans, elevations, and develop- ment schedule to allow the construction of three office buildings and related parking structures on property known as 920 E. Hamilton Avenue (Hamilton Avenue P1obile Home Park) in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Chairman Meyer annou nced that a letter had been received from P~!r. Irving Mandell dated May 15, 1982. Chairman Meyer stated that this correspondence is being referred to the City Attorney in the interest of the full Commission. A copy of this letter is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Mr. Kee stated that this application was continued by the Commission at its previous meeting of April 27, 1982 in order that the applicant could submit revised plans. The Commission also took action to direct the applicant to submit a specific mitigation plan to minimize the impact of this conversion on the mobile home park residents as provided for in Section 65863.7 of the California Government Code. At this time, the Planning Department has not received a revised submittal; consequently, Staff is recommending a con- tinuance of PD 81-13. Mr. Kee continued that, in addition, a letter has been submitted to the Commission requesting a study session from Prometheus Development Company. However, P1r. Kee noted, this correspondence is separate from PD 81-13 and is agendized as Item No. 15 for this evening's proceedings. 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 PD 81-13 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 8, 1982. Motion carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS At this time, it was the consensus of the Commission that Item No. 15 on this evening's agenda be considered out of order since it pertained to PD 81-13. Staff Report Request of Mr. Robert Wagner on behalf of Pro- Prometheus Develop- metheus Development Company to set the date of ment Company a study session with the Planning Commission. The Recording Secretary read into the record a letter from Per. Robert W. Wagner, Vice-President of Prometheus Development Company, dated P•1ay 20, 1982 (attached hereto). Mr. Kee stated that Staff is recommending that the Commission set a date for a study session for the purpose of discussing the proposed development of property known as 920 E. Hamilton Avenue. Mr. Kee noted that, as the Commission is aware, study sessions are open to the public, although it is not a public hearing. The sole purpose is for the Commission to be able to ask questions of the developers or anyone else. Anyone who wishes to -5- listen to the proceedings would be welcome. If another group wishes to request a study session, they may do so--just as the developer has done in this instance. Commissioner Dickson referred to "(2) Specific reasons for inclusion of our site in the City's proposed redevelopment area in the referenced letter, stating that clarification may be needed pertaining to the "redevelopment area" since this was the first time he had heard of any such proposal. Mr. Kee stated that it would be possible for the City Manager to make a presentation regarding the redevelopment concept at the study session. Chairman Meyer noted that the study session was a good idea because of the magnitude of this proposed development. Commissioner Kotowski commented that he did not think the Com~ission should feel compelled to set the study session for the dates suggested by the developer (June 3rd through June 8th). Commissioner Kasolas stated that it was his feeling that the Commission should be polled individually regarding possible dates for the study session, and all Commissioners should be in attendance. P1r. Kee noted that it was Staff's opinion that the mobile home park residents should be notified of the study session, if this was agreeable to the Commission. It was the consensus of the Commission that when a date is set, Staff should notify the residents of the mobile home park. After brief discussion concerning whether the previous item discussed, PD 81-13, should be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 8 or moved to a later date (after the study session), it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski that the continuance date for PD 81-13 remain as previously set-- June 8, 1982. It was also moved, and seconded, that Staff poll the Commissioners individually and determine a mutually convenient date for the study session. Motions carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS At this time, the Commission returned to Item No. 9 on the agenda, UP 82-05. Mr. Kee briefly reviewed this application for the Commission, and stated that the issue before the Commission is an application fora use permit to allow a living unit in an industrial building, for security purposes (as presented to Staff). The Zoning Ordinance requires a use permit for this type of request. Chairman Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. -6- Mr. Myron Alexander, 294 California Street, appeared before the Commission to represent the applicant. He noted that Mr. Brown has lived in this building for the last ten years and wishes to continue to do so for security reasons, and he is currently requesting a use permit in order to legalize his residing in this industrial building. Mr. Sal Leonardi, Division Chief, addressed the Commission noting that the concern of the Fire Department is for the safety of the applicant. He added that the Fire Department is in agreement with the applicant living at this address as long as he meets the fire and building code requirements. Commissioner Kotowski asked if the applicant has conformed to either of these codes. Mr. Kee stated that it was Staff's understanding that plans need to be submitted to the Building Department. This department will then check to make sure that all codes are satisfied. Commissioner Kotowski asked if the requirements of the Fire Department would be met if the building code was satisfied. Chief Leonardi stated that this would be correct. Mr. Kee added that it was Staff's understanding that plans have not yet been submitted to the Building Department; however, a condition of approval is that all requirements be satisfied within six months from date of approval. Commissioner Dickson questioned the Acting City Attorney about the liability of the City should this application be approved this evening and a fire occur in the near future. Acting City Attorney Duckworth stated that since the applicant is in vio- lation of building codes at this time and could be legally cited, it is his opinion that knowing of a negligent situation and allowing the use to continue could put the City in a liable situation. Mr. Kee stated that approval of this use permit did not give the applicant permission to reside at this location for the next six months--he is in violation of codes for a living unit, and steps are being taken to remedy these violations. Commissioner Howard stated that it was his opinion that if he voted in favor of this use permit, then he would be agreeing to the living unit upon the applicant meeting the conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. Chief Leonardi noted that it is not the intention of the Fire Department to put Mr. Brown out of his residence. The violation was discovered by accident during a routine inspection. It is the Department's wish to make the living unit safer for the applicant; and if the only way to do this is by obtaining a use permit, then this is what the Department is recommending. -7- Mr. Duckworth suggested that six months may be too long a period to allow the applicant to meet the conditions of approval, and perhaps the Commission may wish to consider a shorter time period for conformance. It would be the decision of the Commission as to what might be considered a "reasonable" length of time for compliance. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously. RESOLUTION N0. 2114 It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2114 approving UP 82-05, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. m~~~~~~;,,n Commissioner Dickson stated that he was not in favor of granting the use permit until all the conditions have been complied with because of the precarious legal position it might place the City in, although he was in favor of the final use. Commissioner Howard stated that the Commission would not be Giving the applicant permission to live at this site now--but rather is givin4 him permission to reside there when all the conditions have been met. He added that he did not feel the Commission was an enforcement agency. Commissioner Kasolas stated that it was his intention that the use permit be granted upon qualifying. Mr. Duckworth stated that the City cannot condone any dwelling in the referenced structure until the applicant has filed for a Certificate of Occupancy and it has been granted. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Kotowski, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: Campos, Fairbanks Mr. Alexander asked the Commission if the applicant may live on the premises during the six months. Mr. Duckworth repeated that the City cannot condone any dwelling in the building until the applicant has complied with all the codes and has obtained a Certificate of Occupancy. The Commission took a break at 8:45 p.m.; the meeting re-convened at 9:05 p.m. - 8- MISCELLANEOUS SA 82-15 Continued application of Arrow Graphics for a Arrow Graphics sign permit to allow the placement of approxi- mately 149 temporary signs in the public right- of-way so as to direct the public to 5 housing developments within the City. Commissioner Kotowski reported that this item had been considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. It was the Committee's decision that this item be considered by the Commission without a recor~r~enda- tion. He noted that one possible solution would be to come ~-~~ith a maximum number of signs per development, and if the applicant felt that additional signing was warranted, this could be considered on an individual basis by the Planning Staff, with appeals comin4 to the Commission. It should be noted that these signs are only up on weekends and they are taken down on Sunday evening. Commissioner Kasolas noted that a suggested number of signs was ten. Mr. Stafford stated that Staff was in concurrence with the limit of ten signs, should approval of this request be granted, Mr. Bill P1ate,President of Arrow Graphics, appeared before the Commission to give a brief history of his company. He stated that they have been in business for over 12 years, and that they take great care in adhering to the local ordinances. The staff is trained to place the signs at optimum locations, as well as to retrieve all the signs placed so as to avoid clutter. He noted that in order to maintain continuity in directing people, it is necessary to use a certain number of signs--usually about 40. If they are allowed to use only 10 signs, they will be able to cover only about 2-1/2 intersections. Mr. Plate asked that they be allowed to place 20 signs per development, before they come to the Planning Department to request additional signing--thereby allowing them more flexibility in satisfying the builders needs and the community needs. Mr. Kee stated that it is Staff's position that the sign ordinance is to be enforced. He suggested that rather than continually putting Staff in a position of coming back to the Commission, perhaps the Commission should consider amending the ordinance. Staff is concerned that approval of this type of use would set a precedent; Staff does not have a problem with directional signs--it is trying to address the sign ordinance as it currently exists. Commissioner Dickson stated that he was in agreement with the Planning Director, and that every action this Commission takes tends to weaken the Sign Ordinance. He continued that he is not in favor of weakening this ordinance again and again. Commissioner Kotowski asked ~~r. Stafford if the current Sign Ordinance spoke to temporary signs, specifically off-site signs. -9- ter. Stafford noted that the sign ordinance does provide that the Planning Commission may authorize temporary off-site signs. There is a requirement ' that a permit be issued for that signing. Mr. Don Kaye, developer, appeared before the Commission to speak in favor of allowing these directional signs. He stated that they have been of considerable help to him in directing potential home buyers to his development. He suggested that a specific number of signs be established at the beginning of each project by the Planning Department. Commissioner Kasolas suggested that instead of limiting the number of signs, perhaps there should be a limit to the number of locations, with each project being individually reviewed. Commissioner Kotowski noted that this particular case involved an applicant who has demonstrated controlled signing, which is something the Commission does not usually see. In regard to a specific number, he stated he was not sure what Staff Could deal with. Commissioner Kasolas stated that Staff is correct regarding the inordinate amount of time spent on enforcing the sign ordinance. He cited the amount of time taken up by the Commission with each sign appeal. He added that it was his feeling that the Planning Department should be a_iven hetter direction, and suggested a review of the sign ordinance. It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that a sign permit be issued to Arrow Graphics for the placement of directional signing for housing developments, subject to the following conditions: 7. That signing be allowed at up to ten locations with a maximum of two signs per location. 2. That any number of signs requested over the maximum of twenty be considered by the Planning Department on a case by case basis. ? The maximum of twenty signs is per project. Motion carried with a vote of 4-1-2 (with Commissioner Dickson voting "no"). It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that a review of the sign ordinance be agendized for a future general study session. Potion carried with a vote of 5-0-2. Mr. plate was asked to provide the Commission with copies of the ordinances wherein other cities have addressed this particular problem. He stated he would be happy to do so. -10- V 81-06 Referral from the City Council for re-evaluation l~lerthmann, S. of a possible compromise plan fora variance application to reduce the fence setback from 15 feet to 3 feet for property known as 790, 792, 796, 794 and 798 Dry Creek Road in an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski stated that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, noting that this item was referred back from the Council for re-evaluation of a possible compromise. The Committee would like the item considered by the Commission without recommendation. Commissioner Kotowski further noted that he personally felt the compromise might be accomplished, but that the Commission must take into consideration the City's position and the fact that the previous vote was 7-0-0 against the applicant. Chairman Meyer then asked Mr. Kee for his comments. Mr. Kee stated that Staff had no comments other than those in the Staff Comment Sheet, and is recommending that the Commission uphold its previous decision for denial. Chairman Meyer then asked Engineering Manager Helms for his comments. Mr. Helms stated he did not have any comments at this time; however he would respond to any questions that the Commission may have after the applicant has made his presentation. Ms. M. E. Moore-Minister, representing Mr. bJerthmann, appeared before the Commission to state that the applicant would like to share additional information that was not shown at the previous meeting with the Commission. She stated that they would be showing a slide presentation to prove to the Commission what it is like to be in a car in one of the driveways, and to prove that there is adequate sight distance. She continued that they would first like to discuss criteria--Staff has a difference in opinion in terms of the criteria for the position of the car and the length of the car in the driveway. Staff has been recommending a 12 to 12-1/2 foot position of a driver's eye from the position in the car to the rear bumper. After conducting a study through Barton-Aschmann Associates, the applicant finds that the averaoe vehicle is somewhat smaller, thereby making the position of the driver's eye in the driveway to the rear bumper somewhere between 8.6 and 8.7--we feel that it is very conservative on our part to use a 9 foot average for the driver's eye . Ms. Moore-P~inister continued at length regarding various measurements of sight distances and fence setbacks. At the same time, Mr. 4lerthmann showed a slide presentation demonstrating his position by showing a car's various positions in a driveway, with a temporary wall constructed on site, and with miscellaneous traffic on the street by the referenced site at Dry Creek Road. A copy of the study by Barton-Aschmann was also distributed to the Commission (attached hereto). Commissioner Kotowski noted to the Commission that although the Committee did have the research information at this morning's meeting, they did not view the slide presentation. -11- ~1r. Dick Ivy of Barton-Aschmann presented a drawing showing the proposed fencing plan (attached hereto), and spoke briefly in favor of this com- promise. Commissioner Kotowski asked Mr. Werthmann if monolithic sidewalks had been considered for the Central Park frontage. Mr. Werthmann responded that the cost of this type of sidewalk would be too exhorbitant to install at this time. Mr. Helms stated that this current proposal represents a significant compromise; however, it still does not meet all the City's needs in terms of sight distances. He then showed a slide that presented a representative analysis of a few parcels, attempting to show the sight distance that the applicants provided with the proposal that the fence be located 3 feet behind the sidewalk. The standard sight distance at a speed of 35 mph throughout the City is 200 feet. This line of sight cuts extensively across the proposed fenced area. ~1r. Helms continued that the applicant is proposing modifying the bevel point of the fence to about 4-1/2 feet. It is the Public Works Department's position that there would not be a problem with a 6 or 7 foot fence as long as it is constructed on the property-line side of vision. Commissioner Kasolas asked P1r. Helms what fence height could be supported by Staff if the fence were to be moved back to 4-1/2 feet as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Helms stated that a 4 or 5 foot height limitation might be workable. He added that from a traffic safety point of view, Staff would have no objection, if the fence were of a height that could be seen over. Mr. Kee stated that this is another situation wherein the zoning ordinance states the requirements, and unusual conditions need to be presented for a variance. Staff's position is that a hardship is not presented in this situation. The Council is asking the Commission to look again at the new information that is presented this evening. In terms that this property can be developed with the standards of the City--it appears to Staff that this can be done without the granting of a variance. Mr. Kee noted that the Checklist for Variances has been provided to the Commission as a guideline only, and that it was prepared by a former City Attorney. Ms. Moore-Minister stated that she would like to remind the Commission that the applicant feels that these properties are unique because of the double frontage. She added that even with a 3 foot fence built to standard setbacks, one still would not be ahle to see a small child coming down the sidewalk. Commissioner Dickson stated that it was his understanding that the double frontage lots were a compromise between the developer and the City, in order that the developer might obtain a Dry Creek Road address. He added that 7`t is his feeling that the study presented by Barton-Aschmann this evening did not really represent the average length of automobiles, since many types of cars were not Indicated. -12- Mr. Kee stated that, in Staff's opinion, there were other alternatives in developing these properties, other than the double frontage affect. Commissioner Howard stated that it was his opinion that any hardship felt by the developer of this site was self-imposed, and he is in total disagree- ment that this development is a special circumstance. Commissioner Howard added that he felt to grant this request would put the City in jeopardy from a standpoint of possible traffic accidents. It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that the Planning Commission recommend denial of this request to reduce the fence setback from 15 feet to 3 feet for properties known as 790, 792, 794, 796 and 79B Dry Creek Road. Motion carried with a vote of 4-1-2, with Commissioner Kasolas voting "no". At this time Commissioner Kotowski requested that the record show that the Planning Commission would like, either from the City Council or the City Attorney, a definition or guidelines pertaining to the parameters of compromise. From a legal standpoint, what are the responsibilities of the City and the Commission. He stated that the Commission is being asked, in this particular instance, to compromise on something that the Commission finds, from a City department, should not compromised. Commissioner Kotowski added that this referral is not the first time recently that the Commission has been asked by the Council to review it's decision--especially in this case when the vote was 7-0-0 against the application. He concluded that he had some serious concerns about being asked to compromise on a situation that may put the City in legal jeopardy. Staff Report Continued Staff Report regarding proposed revisions Condominium Conversions to the Condominium Conversion Zoning District. Mr. Kee reported that it is Staff's recommendation that the Commission adopt a resolution setting the date of a public hearing to consider a text amend- ment. RESOLUTION NO. 2115 It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that the Planning Com- mission adopt Resolution No. 2115 setting the date of June 22, 19£32 as file date of publ i c heari np to consider possible text amendments to the Condo- minium Zoning District. ~1otion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Campos, Fairbanks -13- OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Dickson asked if there had ever been an attempt to landscape 4linchester Blvd. along the railroad tracks. Mr. Helms noted that the Public 4lorks Department is going to propose the landscaping of about a three-foot .strip up to Hacienda Avenue, with funds left over from the widening of Winchester Blvd. Commissioner Dickson felt that this item should be added to the list of items for discussion at a future study session with the Council. Commissioner Dickson also expressed concern for the deterioration of landscaping in rentals in the R-1 district. He noted that there are many rental units in the City that are becoming eyesores. This item will also be agendized for a future study session. All,l(111RNMFMT It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas, that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m. APPROVED: Jane P. Meyer Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda Dennis Recording Secretary