PC Min 02/19/1980PLANNING COMt4ISSI0N
CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, ?:30 P.M. MIi~L'TES FEBRUARY 19, 1980
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 ~lorth Central Avenue, Can;pbeli, California.
RG!._L CALL
°resent Commissioners: Pack, Dickson, h1eyer, Kasolas (7:45),
Fairbanks, Kotowski, Chairman Campos; Planning
Director Arthur A. Kee, Principal Planner Philip J.
Stafford, Planner II Richard L. Schneider, Engineering
P~tanager Bill Helms, City Attorney J. Robert Dempster
(7:50), Recording Secretary Jeannine Wade.
Absent None
AaPROVAL OF
~1INUTES
Regular Meeting of Commissioner Fairbanks noted that on page 11, tenth
February 5, 1980 paragraph, she was basically in favor of approval
of this application except for the traffic problems,
Commissioner Kasolas then moved that the minutes of
the Planning Commission Meeting of February 5, 1980
be approved as amended, seconded by Commissioner
Meyer and unanimously adopted.
Adjourned Meeting of
February 6, 1980 Commissioner Pack moved that the minutes of the
Adjourned Planning Commission Meeting of February 6,
1980 be approved as submitted, seconded by Commissioner
Kasolas and adopted with Commissioner Fairbanks ab-
staining since she was not present at that meeting.
COh1MUNICATIONS
P1r. Kee reported at this time that there are two items under this category on
this evening's agenda, and other communications received relating to speci~i=ic
items on the agenda would be discussed at she time those items are consic'.~-~ed.
Communication Letter of Mr. Dave i3rady, dated February 6, 1980.
UP 77-11
At~cer coi~siderable discussior~ (the Skateboar~ Park own;.'°, I.1r. Kenyot,, ,~r~~s:,~~r.),
Comr~issioner Pack moved that the Plannin5 Commissior set ? date of pui;li~:.
h2ari ng to cor~si der revocation of the usu ;:ermi t. This ~;~ot-ion eras seconded by
Commissioner Pleyer.
-2-
After a review by i;he City At;~~~r°ne~• r.s ~:~ :~~~~_~t should take place before
considering revocation of a usz per~~~ i c 3 .'eR.~~-~rd ss i oner Meyer v1i thdrew her
second, then Commissioner Pauk wi t~~~:ruv, ~Fer~ ~~oti on to set thi s far publ i c
hearing.
Commissioner Kasolas then moved tiia ~~~i~ i s ~i `u::m be scheduled for the P1 anni ng
Commission meeting of March 18 ir. order that staff could prepare a complete
review of the complaints as stated in Mr. Brady`s letter. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Kotowski and unanimously adopted.
***
S 79-48 Communication of Ms. Brenda Boudreault regarding
Boudreault, B. 1143 Dell Avenue:
After considerable review by the Commission and presentation by the applicant's
representative, Commissioner Kasolas moved that S 79-48 be reinstated (noting the
applicant would not have to resubmit the filing fee of X75 for a new application)
allowing the applicant 30 days to resubmit revised plans. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted.
***
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS
S 80-1 Continued application of Mr. Mark Shelby for approval
Shelby, M. of plans to construct an eight unit apartment complex
on property known as 1681 Bucknall Road in an R-2-S
(Medium Density Residential) Zoning District.
Commissioner Kasolas reported that the applicant had appeared before the Site
and Architectural Review Committee this morning (noting Commissioner Pack had
represented the Commission on the Committee), and after reviewing the applica-
tion the Committee recommended approval.
P1r. Shelby, applicant, appeared before the Commission to ansvrer any questions
they might have.
Cor~nissioner Kasolas then moved that S 80-1 be approved subject to the conditions
listed in the Staff Comment Sheet (a copy of which is attached hereto and made a
part of these minutes), seconded by Ccmmissioner Pack and unanimously adopted.
**~
S 80-2 Application of Mr. Michael J. Curry for approval of
Curry, M. plans to construct two condominium units on property
known as 214 N. Central Avenue in an R-M (Low-Medium
Density Residential) Zoning District.
Corr~nissioner Kasolas reported that this application is for one duplex rather
than two condominium units. He noted that after meeting with the applicant
this morning, the Site and Architectural Review Committee is recommending
approval, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet.
-3-
After discussion of this project regarding density ,and parking requirements,
and a review of the policy ~°egarding Central Avenue by Engineering Manager
Helms, Commissioner Meyer moved that S 80-2 be approved subject to the con-
ditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet (a copy of which is attached hereto),
seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted.
***
S 80-5 Application of Mr. Michael Hangge on behalf of
Hangge, M. Deluxe Check Printers, Inc. for approval of
plans to construct an .addition to an existing
office and industrial building located on
property known as 1551 De h Avenue in a
CM:6-80 (Controlled Manufacturing/Industrial)
Zoning District.
Commissioner Kasolas reported that after a review by the Site and Architectural
Review Committee with the applicant,, the Committee is recommending approval of
this application.
After discussion regarding landscaping (and particularly with regard to
landscaping along the S:P.R.R.); Commissioner Kasolas moved that S 80-5
be approved subject to the conditions listed in 4he Staff Comment Sheet
(a copy of which is attached hereto) with the added condition (to be
numbered Condi ion No. 3) that the fencing -plan is to~come back to the
Planning Director for approval. to insure fencing ~i,s consistent with
adjacent properties. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kotowski
and unanimously adopted.
~~-
The Commission took a break at 8:55 p.m.; the meeting reconvene? at 9:i5 p..m.
***
PUBLIC HEARINGS
UP 77-1 This is the time and place fora public hearing on
Leland, K. the request of Dr. Karen Leland, D.V.M., for approval
of a modification of Condition No. 2 of Resolution
No. 1583, to allow the keeping of up to 100 cats for
the purpose of medical treatment or observation on
property known as 163 E. Hamilton Avenue in a C-1-S
(Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District.
Mr. Kee reported that staff is recommending approval of this request and 4
letters had been received speaking in favor of this request.
Chairman Campos opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience
to speak for or against this item.
-4-
Dr. Karen Leland appeared before the Commission to explain that her request is
not for the boarding of animals, but for treatment and possibly overnight
observance of animals.
Mr. John T. Leland, Cr. Leland's iat~ier, appeared before the Commission to
explain that he had engineered the building, which was designed to accommodate
a maximum of 100 cats.
No one else wishing to be heard, Commissioner Dickson moved that the public
hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted.
RESOLUTION N0. 1876 Commissioner Meyer moved that the Planning Commission
adopt Resolution No. 1876 modifying Condition No. 2 of
Resolution No. 1583 to a71ow the keeping of up to l00
cats for the purpose of medical treatment or obsenva~
tion on property known as 163 E. hamilton Avenue in a
C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District, with
the condition that the staff review this application
in one year and report back to the Commission (not
to be a formal condition of yearly review). This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Pack and unani-
mously adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Pack, Dickson, Meyer, Kasolas, Fairbanks,
Kotowski, Campos
NOES: Commissioners: None
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
UP 79-32 This is the time and place for a continued public
Torres, T. hearing to consider the application of Mrs. Thelma
Torres fo.r a use permit and approval of plans to
allow the conversion of a residence into a restau-
rant on property known as 3265 S. Winchester Blvd.
in an Interim (Commercial) Zoning District.
Commissioner Kasolas reported that after meeting with the applicant's
representative this morning (Mr. Bill Hedley), the Site and Architectural
Review Committee is recommending approval.
Chairman Campos opened the public hearing and invited anyone to speak
regarding this item.
Mr. Morris Stark, of Hedley & Stark, noted the applicant has no objections
to the conditions of approval.
Ms. Runore Smith of 3255 S. Winchester Boulevard inquired about the driveway
location and improvement of Winchester Boulevard.
Mr. Kee explained that there would only be one driveway on one side of the
property. He noted that there will be 10 parking spaces.
Engineering Manager Helms reported that the City would be awarding the contract
for improvement of Winchester Boulevard in May or dune of this year.
-5-
No one else wishing to speak Commissioner Meyer moved that the public hearing
be closed, seconded ~y Commissioner Kasolas and unanimously adopted.
RESOLUTIOfJ N0. 1877 Commis~i:~r~~~~~ "ack moved that UP 79-32 be approved
. ~- by the Cor,imission adopting Resolution rlo. 1877
allowing the conversion o` a residence into a
restaurant on pro;,~~rty known as :3265 S. Winchester
Boulevard, seconded by Commis~oner Dickson and
unanimously adopted.by the f:alicwing roll call
.vote:.
,AYES: Commissioners: Pack, Dickson, Meyer, Kasolas, F~ii:•aanKS.
Kotowski, Cam~3os
h;~)f:S: Commissioner;: None
1~EaSCNT ~ Commissioners : NonF~
Co7imissionzr. Dickson then moved that thF ~-fanning Com^~ission ~•~:co:tm;end *~,,
the City Council the initiation of d public hearing frrr a c~u,F~~~• of zoning
from C-H (Highway Co:rumercial) to C-2 (Cenei°af Comme~°cial; once the Interim
Zone ~i s l i fted for the San Tomas Area. Th i s mo+ i ,-~ was se; onded by
Commissioner Pack and adopted with Commissior~er Fairbanks abstaining beca;~se
oi` a la~„k or knowledge regarding this zone change.
*~*
UP 80-1 This is the time-and place for a public hearing to
Browning, D. consider the application of M~-. Dave Browning for
a use permit and approval of plans to construct ar,
office building on property known as 2885 S.
Winchester Boulevard in an Interim (Commercial)
Zoning District.
Commissioner Kasolas reported that the applicant had met with the Site and
Architectural Review Committee this morning, and the item is being recommended
for continuance since it has been noticed legally for public hearing on March 4,
1980.
Mr. Kee noted that staff is also recommending a continuance to that date.
Chairman Campos opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience
to speak .for or against this item.
No one wishing to sneak, Cornrn-is~ loner Dickson moved that UP 80-1 be continued
to the Planning Ccr.;m?ssion ;reeti,~g of March 4, 1980, seconded by Commissioner
Kasolas and una,~sin;;~usly adopted.
MISCELE.ANEOI.JS
TS 79-17 TcnS::jt~.ive S!.rii~;~i:.i~~n 4'?~.E~: Lands of Hofvendahl
Lards of Hofvenda."? APN -{f 3~-13-28 .~~- 8g,
Mr. Kee reported that tE~~ applicant is rnu~sting approval of a ter:tative map
that Hrould al o~A, i~;m t0. c.ubdi vidQ a 6.3 acre s ite into .~cr logs varying in size
from 5,544 SQIJdre f*t~t t0 3,~C c,C'l"e`'~.
-6-
The subject parcel is located within an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning
District. Section 21.08.060 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies that the minimum
lot area per dwelling unit shall be 6,000 square feet in an R-1 Zoning District.
The applicant is requesting an exemption to this requirement for two of the lots
that he~proposes to create which measure 5,544 square feet and 5,705 square feet
in size.
It is staff's opinion that the Zoning Ordinance does not provide for the exemption
as requested by the applicant. Furthermore, staff cannot recommend that an exemption
be granted as provided for under Chapter 20.28 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Section 20.28.010 states that the Planning Commission may recommend to the City
Council that an exception to the subdivision requirements be granted when the
following findings can be made:
1. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property;
2. That the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
srxbstantial.property right of the petitioner;
3. That the granting of the exception will- not be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property. in the territory in which the
property is situated.
In staff's oa'In1on, these findings cannot be made-for the proposed subdivision
and, therefore, staff is recommending that this application be denied as
submitted.
P1r. Kee explained thoroughly the subdivision: as propose, going over the
tentative map. with the Comnission.
After much discussion, Commissioner Fairbanks moved that this item be
continued in order that a_revised maN could be submitted,~if agreed by
applicant. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Dickson.
At this time Mr. W. L. Chalmers of Paradise, Califorpia (owner) appeared
before the Commission to explain the hardsr,ip pla~~ed on his property
_ because of the PG&lA easement and the right-of way needed for the con-
struction of Regas Drive. He explained that he hired an engineer to
prepare this map and the engineer has determined this to be the only
way feasible to attain the 14 .lots -desired.
At this time Commissioner Dickson withdrew his second to Commissioner
Fairbanks' motion, then Commissioner Fairbanks withdrew her .motion for
continuance.
Commissioner Dickson then moved for denial of this tentative subdivision
map as submitted since reasons for exemption stated by the .applicant do
not seem to fall within those in the Staff Comment Sheet.
This motion-died for lack of a second.
-7-
Commissioner Rack then moved that this tentative subdivision map be approved
as submitted with. the following findings:
1. It would be a hardship on the applicant to present other plans
in view 'of the PG&E easement and the required amount of right
of way for construction of Regas Drive, and
2. That the granting of the exception will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other property in the
territory in which-the property is situated.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Meyer and adopted with Commissioners
Dickson and Fairbanks voting "No".
Commissioner Fairbanks expressed her concern about the guidelines that have.
been set with regard to 6,000 square foot minimum lot size; she ,would pre-
fer to have the applicant come back with a revised map.
Commissioner Dickson expressed his concern about developing at maximum
density.
S 79-37 Request of Mr. Ron Woodrum for approval of a change
Woodrum, R. in building materials on the south and east walls on
a project to be located at 2290 S. Winchester Blvd.
in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District.
Commissioner Kasolas reported that after .meeting with the Site and Architectural
Review Committee this morning,-the applicant has decided to withdraw his
application.
***
Staff Report Staff report regarding the utilization of space for
the area Hour occupied by "Rascal's" in The Factory
shopping center.
Commissioner Rack m~ived that this item be continued to the t~!arch 18, 1980
Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant, seconded by
Commissioner Dickson end unanirously adopted.
***
Referral from Referral from the Park and Recreation Commission
the Park and regarding Los Gatos creekside development.
Recreation
Commission
Mr. Kee explained that the Park and Recreation Commission has taken action to
support the design concept for creekside development as proposed by the Santa
Clara Valley Water District. Basically, the design concept calls for putting
streets and open space adjacent to a creek, rather than having a creek channel
lined by rear-yard fences. The intent of this design concept is to provide
more homeowner privacy and security, provide more useable open space, and to
enhance creekside and neighborhood environments.
_. $..
It is staff's ur~derstan::+;ny tE~Gr. it i,, ~~~:~~ rl~3sirae of the Park and .Recreation
Commiss icr3 thu~~ desig;~ Luncept fcr cr-ee~;sidc ^evelopment be made part of the
Cty's forrlai policy, ar:c 'lr?eluded in the General Plan.
It should be noted t!~at wfiile si:~~3"i is recommending suppori, of the design
standards, most of t:he creeks and s~`reams in Campbell are already bordered
by eXi ati ng Bevel oi~mei;t.
Mr. i)or~ Hebard, Chairma~s of the Los Gatos Creek Stre~.mside Park Committee,
e;:plained the background of this item noting the concern for the enhancement
of the creekside environment. He noted that each jurisdiction having pro-
perty adjacent to the creekside is being asked to adopt this concept. F1e
then introduced Mr. Tally of the Water District.-
Mr. Randy Tally, Santa Clara Valley Water District, gave history on the
development of this concept.
After hearing .background on this item, Commissioner Dickson moved that
(1) the Planning Commission express its support of the design concept
favored by the Los Gatos Creek Streamside Park Committee, and (2) that
a recommendation be forwarded to the City Council which t~~ould ultimately
make the design concept a part of the Open Space Element of the General
Plan. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously
adopted.
Committee Report Report from the Condominium Conversion Ordinance
"Condominium Committee.
Conversions"
P~1r. Kee reported that this item was continued from the adjourned meeting of
February 6, 1980 in order that the Commission could have additional time to
review the draft ordinance.
As a result of concerns expressed at the February 6, 1980 meeting the following
major changes have been incorporated in the draft.
1. Section 21.43.01 B has been expanded to include senior citizens, children
and handicapped persons.
2. Section 21.43.02 J has been added to define stock cooperative.
3. Section 21.43..06 B(3) subsection "b" has been. deleted.
4. Section 21.43.08 has been modified to conform. to the normal parking
regulations - giving the Commission the authority to require more -
not just less - parking.
5. Section 21>43.10 E pertaining to the. subdivider providing assistance
for moving expenses has been deleted: -
If the Planning Commission does take acton to endorse this draft, staff is
recommending that it be referred to the City Council for review. If the
Council considers the draft appropriate, the ordinance would be referred
back to the Planning Commission to initiate a text amendment.
-g-
Commissioner Kasolas inquired t~vhat the difference would be in having an
ordinance vs. not having an ordinance.
Per. Richard Schneider responded that according to the attorneys who gave
the UC extension seminar on Condominium Conversions, it is best to have
the ordinance in order to regulate condominium conversion requirements;
there are not too many things in the ordinance that would be different
from the normal site review process.
Discussion then ensued regarding rent control, housing needs, and saving/
demolition of existing structures.
City Attorney Dempster expressed his concern about items B-1 through,?
listed on page 6. He noted he could not see the necessity to have this
information in order to come to some decision regarding condo conversions.
Commissioner Dickson felt this ordinance would be serving the same purpose
as setting forth zoning requirements. He felt this would protect a buys r
more so than Paving government co~itr-ol . He noted that thi s would give an
appl;rant guidelines to follow in submitting an application.
Commissioner Kasolas expressed corcern~about dictating social policy -
th~~~ough this ordinance, and the taking away from or adding to someone's
personal property rights.
After cohsiderable discussion,' Commissioner Kasolas moved .that the Planning.
Commission recommend to the City Council neither encouragement nor dis-
couragement of condominium conversions; however,. if any ordinance is
considered it reflect that the requirements be no-more nor any less
than those imposed on an-application for new condominium construction.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kotowski ana failed by a 2-5-0
ti~ote, with Commissioners Kasolas and Kotowski voting '°yes".
Motion
Commissioner Dickson then moved that this draft condominium conversion
ordinance be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration along
with comments of-this evening. This motion was seconded by Commissioner
Pack.
(li cr.ussi nn
Commissioner Fairbanks then expressed her concern about the "Purpose"
portion of this ordinance, noting she did not think it fits this city,
as well as renters being able to tie up the property fora long period
of time.
Vote
This motion passed by a 5-2 vote, with Commissioners Kasolas and Kotowski
voting "No".
10-
Referral from Continued referral frcr~; the City Council regarding
City Council Interim Zone status, San Tomas Area.
Due to the lateness of the hour it was the consensus of the Commission that
this meeting be adjourned to Thursday afternoon at 4:30 p.m., February 21,
1980 and that this item be discussed at that time.
Commissioner Kasolas moved that each of the it items be considered indiv~iduallr
and a recommendation be made on each item by the Commission, and that staff
preparF~ a. Fr~akdc.~~r of the area ~sing1e--family, multiple family, commer~~iai,
etc.) for the Cor~!ission's revietir at the time t.r~s item is considered. This
motion w~+s seconded by Ccm,7~issioner Pack and unanimously adopted.
**~
At this time, by minute action, Commissioner Kasolas moved, and Corrnrissioner
Fack seconded, that the following items be continued to the adjourned Planning
Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 21, 1980 in the City Hall
Council Chambers, at 4:30 p.m..:
Staff Report Discussion regarding developments which include
existing residential structu-res.
Planning Commission Subcommittee Appointments..
***
Items Brought Up By Commissioners
Commissioner Pack mentioned that. the Commission might be thinking ahout a
luncheon for George Vierhus, and possibly they could discuss this at thy-
adjourned meeting.
ADJOURNMENT_ Commissioner Kasolas moved that the meeting be
adjourned to 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, February 211
1980. This motion was seconded 6y Commissioner
Meyer and unanimously adopted.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 midnight.
APPROVED:
Dance Campos, Cnairman
ATTEST:
RECORDED:
Arthur A. Kee, Secretary
Jeannine Wade, Recording Secretary