Loading...
PC Min 03/09/1982PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MARCH 9, 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 North Central Avenue, Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners: Kasolas (7:40), Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks, Meyer; Planning Director Arthur A. Kee, Principal Planner Philip J. Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney J. Robert Dempster, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis Absent None APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 23, 1982 Commissioner Kotowski moved, and Commissioner Howard seconded, that the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 1982 be approved as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. *** CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Kee reported that there is nothing to be considered under the "Consent Calendar" portion of this evening's agenda. *** ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 81-27 Continued application of Mr. Ali Chahidi for Chahidi, A. approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a 13,200 square foot office building on property known as 2255 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski stated that the applicant had met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. The applicant has addressed the concerns of Staff, as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet of February 9, 1982. The Committee is recommending approval of this application, subject to the conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet, attached hereto, as well as the following conditions: (1) Developer to return to the Site and Architectural Review Committee with a detailed cross-section view of the sub-terranean garage in relation to adjacent properties on each side of -2- the development; (2) Complete landscape plan to be returned to the Site and Architectural Review Committee for review; and (3) Completed render- ings of elevations to come back to Site and Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Fairbanks stated her concern with the lot coverage being too dense on this development. It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that S 81-27 be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet as well as additional conditions listed above by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). *** S 82-02 Continued application of Mr. Harold Osterlund Osterlund, H. for approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a 1,612 square foot office addition to an existing building on property known as 541 Division Street in a CM:B (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reviewed the application for the Commission, stating that this item had been continued from the meeting of February 23, 1982 in order that the applicant could submit revised plans addressing concerns of the Commission and Staff. The applicant has since submitted revised plans which indicate: 1. The reduction of the canopy roof projection from 5' to 30" as allowed by the code. The architectural design of the roof has not been changed. 2. The construction of a small enclosed storage building to the rear of the building and the screening of the fenced-in compressor on the side of the building. A small fenced-in compressor on the side of the building will be screened by landscaping. Commissioner Kotowski noted that the applicant had met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and the Committee is recommending approval of this application, subject to the conditions as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet, attached hereto. It was moved by Commissioner Campos, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that S 82-02 be approved subject to the conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). *** S 82-03 Application of Mr. Kurt Anderson for approval Anderson, K. of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a 2,568 square foot warehouse building on property known as 132 Kennedy Avenue in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. -3- Commissioner Kotowski reported that the applicant had met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and the Committee is recommending, with the applicant's consent, a continuance to the meeting of March 23, 1982 because of a possible office space within the warehouse that was not shown on the plans. This office use would also alter the parking ratio of the development. It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that S 82-03 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 23, 1982 in order that the applicant could submit revised plans showing the possible office space within the warehouse use, as well as a revised parking layout. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). *** PUBLIC HEARINGS V 81-06 Now is the time and place for a continued Werthmann, S. public hearing to consider the application of Mr. Steve Werthmann for a fence variance to reduce the rear setback from 15 feet to 3 feet and increase the height of the fence from 6 feet to 7 feet on property known as 790, 792, 794, 796, and 798 Dry Creek Road in an R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski stated that the applicant and his engineers had met with the Site and Architectural Review this morning. The Committee felt that this item should be reviewed by the entire Commission due to the difference of opinion between the applicant's traffic engineer and the City's engineers. Mr. Kee reviewed the application stating that the applicant is requesting a fence variance so as to reduce the fence setback on Central Park Drive from 15 feet to 3 feet and to increase the height of the fence from 6 feet to 7 feet. This proposal will involve five separate parcels. Members of the Planning and Public Works Staff, including the Traffic Engineer, met with Mr. Werthmann at the site some months ago to discuss the possibility of reducing the required setback. It was the consensus of the City Staff, including the Traffic Engineer, that adverse traffic safety conditions would result with reduction of the required 15 foot setback. More pre- cisely, a fence constructed less than 15 feet from the property line will reduce the visibility to the sidewalk when a car is backed out of the garages onto Central Park Drive. In the Staff's opinion, a definite hazard will be created to pedestrians using the sidewalk, children riding bicycles on the sidewalk, and to motorists using Central Park Drive. It should be noted by the Commission that the Planning Staff, as well as the Public Works Staff supported a conditional exception (similar to a variance) to the subdivision ordinance which allowed the five double frontage lots along Central Park Drive. This support was in response to the applicant's request for a Dry Creek address for the lots and the City Staff's concern about another opening or street to Union Avenue. The City's original position had been that property could develop in accord with all subdivision regulations with a street serving access to the lots off Central Park Drive. No exceptions would have been necessary in that case. -4- Mr. Kee added that there has been a change to the fence plan--some places have been angled 45° to give additional site distance to Central Park Drive traffic. Mr. Kee noted that Staff is still of the opinion that the lots can be utilized in accord with R-1 zoning without variances to the setback requirements. A copy of the checklist for variances was handed to the Commission for their information. Chairman Meyer invited anyone to speak on this item. Ms. M. E. Moore-Minister, 2000 W. Redding St., San Jose, appeared before the Commission representing Mr. Werthmann. She requested that City Engineering Manager Bill Helms address this item first, in order that she might answer any questions the Commission might have after hearing Mr. Helms' presentation. Mr. Helms reviewed the project for the Commission stating that the request of the variance is to reduce the standard required setback for fencing from 15 feet to 3 feet on the Central Park Drive frontage. He reiterated that Staff's consistent opinion has been that this would be a significant safety hazard, that vehicles backing out of the driveway on Central Park Drive would have a significant disadvantage with site distance. If a vehicle is moving at 30 mph, it take approximately 200 feet for the driver to recognize an obstruction in the roadway and come to a halt. The Staff's concern is that the driver sitting in the driveway, as well as the oncoming Central Park Drive traffic, should have at least 200 feet of site distance. Staff does not believe there is a sufficient margin of safety--which we feel is the conservative safety position the City must take. If the City allows this variance, then Mr. Helms felt that the burden is on the City in the event of an accident. Mr. Dempster noted that there is a distinct possibility that the burden of an accident would be on the City, should the setback variance be approved, especially if the problem is determined by a court as being foreseeable. Ms. Moore-Minister stated that due to the unusual double lots in this development, the applicant feels that this request for a variance on the setback and height of a fence is reasonable. The hardship is presented in the double lot frontage requirements. Because of the 15-foot setback, there is an excessive amount of space between the property line and the back fence. The applicant feels that a 3 foot setback is a viable solution. The introduction of the beveled fence and landscaping was planned to make the fencing appealing to the people facing the development across Central Park Drive. She further noted that those people driving out of the garages would be aware of the traffic hazards. The additional fence height is being requested for the protection of the property owners who will possibly have hot-tubs or swimming pools. Mr. Dick Ivy of Barton-Ashman, Traffic Engineers, stated that he basically agrees with the figures presented by Mr. Helms regarding site distances, etc. He noted that his basic difference was with the conservative figures allowed by the backing-up driver and the on-coming driver 200 feet of .site distance. Mr. Ivy stated that southbound traffic on Union, making right-hand turns onto Central Park Drive, presents another major concern since there is no way the 200 feet of site distance can be accomplished. The applicant might, in this case, recommend that this corner fence be set back 10 feet to increase viability. -5- Commissioner Dickson asked Mr. Ivy if a 15 foot setback was safer than a 3 foot setback. Mr. Ivy replied that it is safer. Commissioner Howard asked if there would be cars parking along Central Park Drive. Mr. Helms stated that, at this time, the City is not restricting parking in this area, so that typically there would be cars parked along both sides of Central Park Drive. Commissioner Kasolas questioned if he had heard the applicant's engineer say that they would modify the plans to show the corner lot with a 10 foot setback if it was the Commission's desire. Mr. Ivy replied in the affirmative. Mr. Kee noted that the application was made for a reduction to 3 feet. Staff is of the opinion that there is good reason for the 15 foot setback _ and the position of Staff is for denial of this variance to the setback requirement. Commissioner Howard asked Ms. Minister if the fence was made of wood, relating to the fact that the fence would be made of a combustible materials and only 3 feet from a sidewalk. Mr. Stafford noted the Building Department does not have a problem with this requested setback of 3 feet. Mr. Steve Werthmann appeared before the Commission, and reviewed the history of this development, noting that although 16 homes would have been allowable, the three acres have been developed with 11 lots; thereby retaining several very old (400 years) trees on the property. Mr. bJerthmann presented a petition from surrounding neighbors in support of the fence proposal. A copy of this petition is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Commissioner Howard asked Mr. Werthmann why he was objecting to backing up 10 feet in the front yard. Mr. Werthmann replied that the CC&R's state that there is to be a 30 foot setback from the property line to the front face of the home. He noted that the problem with the g^anting of his variance seems to be one of safety. He stated that he did not build an unsafe development. He felt that the 3 foot setback would be more attractive because the property would be landscaped and maintained, whereas 15 feet outside of the back yard would not be main- tained and would become a trash collector area. Commissioner Howard asked if Mr. Werthmann was aware that he could have a 3 foot fence up to the property line without a variance. Mr. Werthmann stated he was aware of this; however, the reason for the request of the fence height is because the homes face the cul-de-sac, the back yards face Central Park Drive. -6- Commissioner Howard asked who designed the CC&R's for this development, and if the City had been consulted with prior to the writing of the CC&R's. Mr. Werthmann stated that he had worked with a title company designing the CC&R's, and that he is an officer on the Board of Director's for the home- owner's association. He added that he had consulted with the City in every aspect of the development. Mr. Kee stated that the Commission would not find Staff supporting any subdivision that proposed the removal of any mature trees. In reference to the CC&R's, Mr. Kee noted to the Commission that it is very important that consideration be given to Section K on the Checklist for Variances. In regard to the request for an increase in fence height from 6 feet to 7 feet, Mr. Kee stated that Staff is recommending approval on the basis of past action of the Commission as related to privacy fencing. A fence 7 foot in height 15 feet back from the property line should not be detri- mental to the neighborhood or to surrounding property. He added that the Architectural Advisor is of the opinion that the design of the fence is an improvement and better than the typical "good neighbor fence" normally found in residential subdivisions. It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Motion 1 It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, trot she Commission adopt Resolution No. 2098 denying the application for a fence variance to reduce the setback from 15 feet to 3 feet for V 81-06, citing safety as the primary factor. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Motion 2 It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that the Commission adopt a resolution denying the application for a variance to the allowable fence height from 6 feet to 7 feet for V 81-05 for the following reasons: (1) the hardship presented in this case was self-imposed; and (2) there is minimal pedestrian traffic in this area (as stated by the applicant), and it is felt that additional privacy protection is not warranted. Discussion on Motion 2 Commissioner Kasolas felt that since the fence would be 15 feet from the rear property line, it would be difficult to see the difference of one additional foot from across Central Park Drive. Additionally, Staff is recommending approval of the height variance. Commissioner Kasolas stated he was in favor of the height variance. -7- Vote on Motion 2 AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Fairbanks NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Meyer ABSENT: Commissioners: None Motion fails. Motion 3 It was moved by Commissioner Campos, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 2099 approving the fence height variance from 6 feet to 7 feet for V 81-06. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: Dickson, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None RESOLUTION N0. 2098 ~It was moved by Commissioner Howard that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2098 den in the application of Mr. Steve 4Jerthmann for a fence variance to reduce the setback from 15 feet to 3 feet, citing safety as the primary factor, seconded by Commissioner Campos, and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None RESOLUTION N0. 2099 It was moved by Commissioner Campos that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2099 approving the fence height variance from 6 feet to 7 feet for V 81-06, seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: Dickson, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None *** The Commission took a break at 8:55 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. *** -8- UP 82-03 Now is the time and place for a public hearing Callin, J. to consider the application of Mr. Jeffry Callin to allow the establishment of an off-sale beer and wine eating place for property known as 819 W. Hamilton Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Mr. Kee reviewed this item for the Commission, noting that the applicant is applying for a use permit to allow an off-sale beer and wine eating place, a take-out pizza parlor, in an existing building. The applicant will occupy approximately 1,280 sq.ft. of the building to which 6 parking spaces have been allocated. Should the applicant ever wish to have on-site dining, this parking situation would allow him 18 seats in the restaurant, at a ratio of 1:3 seats. The Police Department has no comments regarding the liquor license; however, it does note that a semi-arcade permit has been applied for. Mr. Kee stated that Staff is 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 Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Motion It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the application of Mr. Jeffry Callin for a use permit to allow the establishment of an off-sale beer and wine eating place for pro erty known as 819 W. Hamilton Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial Zoning District. Discussion on Motion Commissioner Dickson noted that he would be voting against the motion because he was morally opposed. After brief discussion of surrounding uses in the area, Commissioner Kotowski requested that, in the future, should there by any facilities involving youth participation, in an area near any use permits for liquor, that the Commission be apprised of this in order to have complete facts before making any decision. It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the public hearing be re-opened. .Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Mr. Jeffry Callin, applicant, appeared before the Commission to clarify his request for an off-sale beer and wine permit. He stated that the off-sale beer and wine was merely as a convenience for his customers who would be taking out pizza. Mr. Callin added that he is planning to partition off the section that will hold the video games that he is requesting a permit for, and that he is requesting a permit for 6 machines. After brief discussion concerning the arcade use, Mr. Dempster cautioned the Commission to avoid areas other than those addressed specifically in the application. -9- It was motioned by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that the public hearing be closed. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). RESOLUTION N0. 2100 It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2100 approving the application of Mr. Jeffry Callin fora use permit to allow the establishment of an off-sale beer and wine eating place on property known as 819 W. Hamilton Avenue in a PD (Planned Development/Commercial) Zoning District, seconded by Commissioner Campos, and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: None *** ZC 82-02 This is the time and place for a public hearing Harris, R. to consider the application of Mr. Ron Harris for a zone change from PD (Planned Development/ Office, Commercial, or Industrial) to CD (Condominium/Office, Commercial, or Industrial) and approval of plans and elevations to allow the construction of a 22,400 square foot office condominium building on propoerty known as 241 W. Sunnyoaks and 970 Old Orchard Road in a Planned Development and Single Family Residential Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski stated that the applicant had met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and the Committee felt that this proposal was an exceptional design for this difficult site. The applicant did bring revised plans to this morning's meeting; however, there was not adequate time for Staff to review them. Consequently, the Committee is asking that this item be continued to the meeting of March 23, 1982 in order that the revised plans may be reviewed. Mr. Kee noted that this is Staff's recommendation as well. Commissioner Fairbanks queried as to the zoning of the lot known as 970 Old Orchard Road -- is it R-1 or PD? Mr. Kee responded that Staff would have to check to this property has been published in the Notice of H~ the file, Mr. Kee informed the Commission that this re-noticed for public hearing in order to correctly the R-1 parcel. He recommended that the Commission to the meeting of April 13, 1982. see if the zoning on paring. After checking item would have to be note the zoning for re-agendize ZC 82-02 Mr. Dempster explained the situation to the audience, and asked that anyone who was there to speak on this item come back on April 13, 1982 at which time the public hearing would be opened. -lo- Commissioner Kasolas requested a review of all the various applications on this property, stating that such a review would be very helpful to all concerned. Mr. Kee noted that Staff would research the referenced applications, and prepare a review for the Commission. Mr. Dempster recommended that the public hearing not be opened in view of the application being improperly noticed. It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Kotowski, that ZC 82-02 be re-agendized for the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 1982. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). Commissioner Kotowski requested Staff to prepare a traffic report, including accidents, for this site. Mr. Helms noted that such a report would be prepared, and that he would prefer to give the report orally, rather than written, if this was acceptable to the Commission. f~ISCELLANEOUS SA 81-52 Appeal of decision of Planning Director denying SA 82-10 request for signing on property known as 1386 Whiteoaks Road in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kotowski reported that the applicant, Mr. Mitchell, had met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and that the Committee is recommending that this application be approved because it is felt that this proposal is a much cleaner effect that what is presently occuring in this area. The Committee has recommended denial of the signing proposed for each tenant because it may be a traffic hazard due to the fact that it protrudes into the driveway. The Committee has also asked that the applicant come back before the Site Committee with a colored rendering for the approval of the Committee, and that a new sign design be developed for the individual tenant signs in the project--this also to come back to the Committee. It was moved by Commissioner Fairbanks, and seconded by Commissioner Campos that SA 81-52/SA 82-10 be approved, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet (attached hereto), as well as the conditions listed above by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). *** S 78-41 Continued application of Mr. David Schrader for Schrader, D. modification to an approved plan for property known as 213 Cristich Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. -11- Commissioner Kotowski stated that the applicant had met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. At the time of the original approval of the project plans, it was not realized that there was a utility pole right in the middle of the driveway. When the final inspection was attempted, the problem became apparent. The applicant does not wish to go along with the suggested modifications proposed by Staff, and the Committee has asked him to present his side to the Commission this evening. PAr. Stafford added that Staff's suggested modification is to move the driveway slightly, rearrange some landscaping, and eliminate parking which backs out onto Cristich Lane. It is Staff's understanding that the applicant would prefer to leave things as they are now. Mr. David Schrader, 1925 E. Campbell Avenue, applicant, presented pictures of Cristich Lane noting that his property is probably one of the nicer sites on the street. The current parking situation is very convenient for his office, and he does not wish to change it now. He stated that he would be willing to extend one planter area--joining it to the other, narrowing the driveway, and eliminating one parking space. Mr. Dempster added that Mr. Schrader originally came into the City Attorney's office on a code violation for this problem, and we suggested he file for an amendment to the approved plans. Commissioner Dickson asked if the proposal as stated by Mr. Schrader is acceptable to Staff. Mr. Stafford stated that the bottom line is whether or not the Commission wants to approve traffic backing out onto Cristich Lane. Mr. Kee added that Staff's position is that the Commission approved one thing and something else was done. The Commission has previously approved backing out onto Cristich Lane, as it is a private street. It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, that the Staff recommendation, as presented in Exhibit 2 (attached hereto) be approved. Discussion Commissioner Kotowski stated that he would vote no on this motion; he felt that some design or format was badly needed in this area. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Fairbanks, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: Kotowski, Howard, Campos, Meyer ABSENT: Commissioners: None It was moved by Commissioner Kotowski, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that the Commission approve modifications as presented by the applicant in Exhibit 1 (attached hereto). Motion carried by the following roll call vote: -12- AYES: Commissioners: Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Fairbanks ABSENT: Commissioners: None Commissioner Fairbanks stated she voted "no" because the City has a policy that when plans are approved they should be constructed as approved. Commissioner Kasolas opposed this motion because of the traffic situation in the area, with respect to backing out onto Cristich Lane. Staff Report Discussion of Senate Bill No. 1160 which permits Cities or Counties to issue a variance or use permit for an additional dwelling unit on a parcel zoned fora single-family residence provided that the unit is solely occupied by adults 60 years or older. Mr. Kee reviewed this item, stating that on September 27, 1981 the Governor of California approved Senate Bill No. 1160. Essentially, this bill allows a City or County to issue a variance or use permit for an additional dwelling unit on a parcel. zoned for a single family residence, provided that the dwelling unit is intended for the sole occupancy of not more than two adults who are 60 years of age or over, and the dwelling unit does not exceed 640 sq.ft. in area. It is the City Attorney's and Staff's interpretation that the Bill does not require a City or County to allow such units, but rather it gives the juris- diction the option, if it so chooses, to allow the units. The City could set any development standards it deems necessary to regulate such units. The intent of the Bill is to encourage housing for the elderly. Specifically, in Section 1 of the Bill, the Legislature declares: 1. Steps must be taken to encourage the creation of more residential units for persons over the age of 60. 2. There is a serious shortage of housing units for persons over 60. 3. There is an important need to maintain senior citizens in independent living situation and also to encourage housing arrangements that prevent isolation of elderly persons and re-unite families. Staff has several concerns regarding development of these units. First, it will be extremely difficult to enforce the requirement that only those 60 years of age or over occupy such units. Secondly, if a large number of the units are built, the character of the "Single-Family" neighborhood could change. It is Staff's opinion that if the City elects to encourage units of this type that Section 21.08 of the Campbell Municipal Code (R-1/Single-Family Residential District) be amended to require a conditional use permit for such units. De- velopment standards which should be considered include: required setbacks, -13- lot coverage, parking standards, and if the units should be attached or detached. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider this infor- mation and forward a recommendation to the Council regarding a suggested course of action on this matter, if any. Mr. Dempster noted that the real problem is subsequent ownership. Commissioner Dickson recommended that the Commission take no action at this time, since there appears to be no public outcry for this type of housing, and since Campbell has adequate senior housing. It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Howard, that no action be taken at this time. Motion carried unanimously (7-0-0). *** Referral from Historic Preservation Study Committee The Commission acknowledged and filed this referral, since no action is required. *** Referral from Information Only: Referral from the City Council City Council directing the Planning Commission to schedule a public hearing to consider PD (Planned Develop- ment) zoning for property known as 690 S. San Tomas Aquino Road (GP 81-11). Mr. Kee recommended that the Commission set a date for public hearing to consider a zone change for property known as 690 S. San Tomas Aquino Road to PD and R-1 (Planned Development/Single Family Residential). Mr. Don Rose appeared before the Commission and stated that he had been asked by the property owner to speak for the R-1 zoning. RESOLUTION N0. 2101 It was moved by Commissioner Dickson that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2101 setting a date for public hearing to consider PD and R-1 (Planned Development and Single- Family Residential) Zoning for property known as 690 S. San Tomas Aquino Road, seconded by Commissioner Fairbanks, and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Dickson, Howard, Kotowski, Campos, Fairbanks, Meyer NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None -14- OTHER ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Dickson requested that Staff check into the motorcycle shop on Winchester Blvd. as they appear to be displaying motorcycles on the street in parking spaces. Commissioner Dickson stated that he had received materials in the mail con- cerning the Hamilton Avenue Mobile Home Park from the developer, Promeutheus. He felt that the developer should be cautioned against giving the Commission information prior to a public hearing. Chairman Meyer noted that a representative is needed for the Site and Architectural Review Committee, as Commissioner Fairbanks is unable to continue at this time. She noted that Commissioner Campos is serving on the Committee until the end of Ptarch. She suggested that the Commissioners think about serving on the Committee for a month at a time. Commissioner Kotowski gave a brief report on the conference in San Diego. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Howard, and seconded by Commissioner Campos, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m. APPROVED: Jane P. Meyer Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee ecretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary