Loading...
PC Min 05/01/1979PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES MAY 1, 1979 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: Meyer, Dickson, Campos, Pack, Kasolas, Chairman Samuelson; Planning Director Arthur A. Kee, Senior Planner Philip Stafford, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, Acting City Attorney Jerry Bartholow, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent Commissioner Vierhus APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Pack moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of April 17, 1979, be approved as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Meyer, and unanimously adopted. Commissioner Pack expressed the appreciation of the Commission for the presence of Mr. Jerry Bartholow, Acting City Attorney. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Stafford reported that communications received relate to specific items on the agenda, and would be introduced at the appropriate times. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS SA 79-31 Application of Mr. Jim Ginter and QRS Corporation U-Haul for approval of signing for U-Haul Moving Center to be located on property known as 1266 Whiteoaks in an M-1-S Zoning District. Commissioner Kasolas stated that the applicant had met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and it was the recommendation of the Committee that this application be approved with the condition that the overall height of the freeway-oriented sign be changed to 15'-8" (total height) for truck clearance. Mr. Stafford reviewed the .application for the Commission, explaining that because of the elevation and terrain of this property any sign would be freeway-oriented. He stated that the proposed sign would be perpendicular to Whiteoaks Road. -2- Commissioner Kasolas indicated that the position of the sign was due to the size of trucks and traffic circulation on the property. Commissioner Dickson expressed his concern regarding the size of the free- standing sign in addition to the proposed signing for the sides of the building. He felt this was much more signing than was necessary for the project, stating two signs would seem adequate and an enlargement of the landscaping would be beneficial to the total effect. Chairman Samuelson asked what kind of conflict would be incurred if the landscaping were enlarged. Commissioner Pack inquired if there had been discussion about putting the sign in another planter box so that it could be lower to the ground. Commissioner Kasolas stated that the Site and Architectural Review Committee had been presented with an application for a specific location and that was all that was considered. It was the consensus of the Committee that if a sign was to be erected, they would rather have it a foot higher and intact, rather than a damaged sign. The Architectural Advisor did not feel that an additional foot would make a difference.' Mr. Jim Ginter, applicant, indicated on the site plans that the planter areas have been extended and driveway areas have been made smaller. He stated that the sign could be narrowed down to 22 feet overall length, since it is preconstructed modular signing. After further discussion concerning the size of the proposed signing, Commissioner Dickson moved for continuance of SA 79-31. Mr. Ginter requested specific guidelines from the Commission, stating that he had revised the sign several times and had obtained approval at several different stages, only tp meet failure and have to start again. Specific guidelines would make his job easier, and save everyone time. Motion Commissioner Dickson moved that SA 79-31 be continued to the next meeting, in order that possible ways of reducing sign size could be reviewed. Seconded by Commissioner Campos, motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Campos, Pack NOES: Commissioners: Meyer, Kasolas, Samuelson ABSENT: Commissioners: Vierhus Motion for continuance failed. Motion Commissioner Kasolas moved that SA 79-31 be approved as presented, with conditions as listed in the Staff Comment Sheet, and the added condition of overall height to be increased to 15'-8", seconded by Commissioner Meyer, adopted by the following roll call vote: -3- AYES: Commissioners: Meyer, Pack, Kasolas, Samuelson NOES: Commissioners: Dickson, Campos Absent: Commissioners: Vierhus Discussion Commissioner Campos stated that Mr. Ginter had a valid point in requesting guidelines. He felt that the proposed signing was not appropriate for the area. He stated that the Commission should not continue to be inconsistent in approval of signs, and stressed the importance for uniformity in the sign policy of the city. Commissioner Pack reiterated her recommendation for a committee to develop a sign theme. Commissioner Kasolas felt that the signing item had taken a great deal of time, when it was a relatively small thing. He felt that the sign requests should have to go no further than the Sign Review Committee, and that definite priorities must be developed. He felt that the term "no larger than necessary" was an ambiguous statement that could be taken however anyone wanted to take it. S 79-21 Application of Mr. Lewis Bratton for approval Bratton, L. of plans to locate two fuel storage tanks, within 100 feet of a residence, on property known as 439 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Mr. Stafford reviewed the application, stating that this item was before the Commission because of policy regarding fuel tanks within 100 feet of a residence. Commissioner Kasolas stated that this application had been reviewed by the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and that the Committee had no difficulty in making a recommendation after learning that the Fire Department had no objections. It was moved by Commissioner Meyer, seconded by Commissioner Dickson, and unanimously adopted that S 79-21 be approved with the condition of the Fire Department that an additional permit fee of $5.00 be required for the second tank. PD 77-24 Application of Mr. Paul W. Bosholm for approval Bosholm, P. of fence design and materials for a 57-unit patio home style subdivision located on property known as 601 El Patio Drive in a P-D (Planned Development/High Density Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Stafford pointed out the specifics regarding the proposed fencing on the site plans. Staff was of the opinion that masonry walls should be placed on the southerly and easterly property lines. The applicant has -4- encountered technical problems with the installation of the masonry walls (letters documenting these difficulties are attached hereto and made a part of the record). The applicant has indicated that he would pursue his efforts with the Santa Clara Valley Water District fora masonry wall, but would like it left open in case efforts are unsuccessful. Commissioner Kasolas stated that the Site and Architectural Review Committee was recommending approval of a wood fence on the southerly property line and that the applicant continue to work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and construct a concrete fence along the easterly property line. He stated that if the concrete fence was not approved by the Water District, then the applicant could resubmit his request fora wood fence. He further stated that consideration must be taken for the neighbors and the people already living in this development. The Architectural Advisor did recommend wood fencing on the s ut erly rop rty lines for d $ fter eff ct The Com fission may want to look a~ t e woo~en ~ence as a possibility on t~e i~reeway si~e. Commissioner Pack asked why a concrete fence was initially considered along the freeway. Mr. Kee indicated that it was proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Kasolas felt that a concrete fence along the freeway looked a little better. Commissioner Pack stated that a wood fence can be made to reduce sound as well as a concrete fence, but a concrete fence is certainly more durable. Mr. Paul Bosholm, applicant, appeared before the Commission, stating that he would continue efforts to put a concrete fence along the easterly property line. The problem stems from the fact that the Santa Clara Valley Water District wants a concrete fence that can be detached or removed for maintenance access. He further indicated he was very happy with the Site and Architectural Review Committee's recommendation that allows him to start the fence on the south side with wood. Commissioner Dickson asked if anything had been done regarding the concerns of the neighbors regarding the project. Mr. Bosholm stated that neighbors had been contacted, and that most of them had indicated a preference for a masonry wall. Commissioner Dickson asked if any of the neighbors had been contacted regarding this application. Mr. Kee responded that the neighbors had not been contacted by staff at this point. Commissioner Dickson felt that a response from the neighbors was important, since this was an established neighborhood. Mr. Bosholm again stated that the neighbors he had contacted indicated a preference for a 6- to 8-foot masonry wall. However, he felt there was a great deal of difference in aesthetic impact for the people who lived in his development who had only 10-foot backyards, whereas the neighbors were dealing with a wall that is approximately 200 feet from their homes. Mr. Kee added that when staff receives an application with one or more building materials indicated, staff consistently adds the condition that the final selection is to be approved by the Planning Director. When there is a difference of opinion, then it comes to the Commission; that is where we are this evening. He further added that staff has no disagreement with the Site and Architectural Review Committee's recommendation. It was moved by Commissioner Pack, seconded by Commissioner Meyer, and adopted by a 5-1-1 vote (Commissioner Dickson voting "no" because he did not feel that there had been adequate notification of adjoining neighbors) that the Planning Commission approve the applicant's request for all fences as submitted, including interior entry and southerly fence, with exception of the easterly fence; applicant to work with the Santa Clara Valley Water District to attempt to install concrete fence along easterly portion of property and resubmit through the Planning Department in the event installation of concrete fence is not acceptable to Santa Clara Valley Water District, resubmittal would affect easterly portion of property lines. * * ~ The Commission took a break at 8:45 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 79-9 This is the time and place for a continued public Alvarado, C. hearing to consider the application of Mr. Cosme C. Alvarado for a use permit and approval of plans to allow expansion of a coin-op car wash located on property known as 2260 South Winchester Boulevard in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kasolas stated that the applicant's representatives, Mr. Hugh Brewster and Mr. Warren Jacobsen, had met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. The applicant is proposing to separate his property from the Delta Tire Shop by the use of landscaping, thereby reducing concerns of area residents regarding the traffic circulation on the develop- ment. After reviewing in detail with the applicant's representatives and Architectural Advisor, a recommendation is being made by the Committee that the back building of the development be open only from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and the front building open from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays. The reasoning for closing the back building down completely was because of vacuum cleaners being used any time after 9:00 p.m. could be offensive to residents. Commissioner Kasolas stated that the applicant was in agreement with these new times. He further stated that the applicant was requesting that Condition I of the Fire Department be changed in order that they only be required to disconnect and remove fuel dispensers, and to fill and seal the tanks, rather than take them up. With the approval of the Fire Department, the Committee's recommendation is that if the Fire Department insists that the tanks be removed we will recommend that, but if they approve of leaving the tanks in the ground and sealing them, the Committee will go along with that. If the tanks are left, they are to be filled and sealed. Mr. Stafford indicated that staff has received communications from area residents concerning this application. These letters are attached hereto and made a part of this record. Commissioner Kasolas stated that it was felt by the Committee that the changing of the hours had solved most of the concerns of the neighbors. -6- Commissioner Dickson stated that this is a non-conforming use, as indicated in the Staff Comment Sheet, and by approving this application he wondered if that would then make the use conforming. He asked how this was not conforming. Mr. Kee commented that this application is an extension of a non-conforming use with a Use Permit according to ordinance. It would still be a non-conforming use, not meeting the conditions for outdoor businesses because it is not located at an intersection of two streets, each of which must have four moving lanes of traffic. Mr. Stafford reviewed the site plan for the Commission, indicating current usage and proposed plans. Chairman Samuelson invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item since this is a continued public hearing. Mrs. Edith Ames, 45 Kennedy, appeared before the Commission to state that she was against the car wash because of the existing problems of trash, traffic, and noise. She emphasized the problem of people playing their car stereos loudly while they were using the facility, as well as working on their vehicles. She indicated that the vacuums were located right next to her bedroom window. Mr. Hugh Brewster, 136688 Lexington Avenue, Saratoga, representing the applicant, stated that after this morning's meeting, it has been decided to relocate the vacuum that was proposed near Mrs. Ames' window. He indicated that the vacuum was the only real noise problem of the development. The only other noise emitting from the project would be the spraying of water on the cars. He further stated that it was the intent of the applicant to fill the existing fuel tanks with water, and removing the dispensers, if required by the Fire Department and the Commission. Chairman Samuelson and Commissioner Pack expressed concern over the noise problem as well as the trash problem, and asked what controls were provided for these concerns. Mr. Brewster indicated that these factors were difficult to control since there was no operator on site. Commissioner Dickson questioned how the applicant would be able to demonstrate that he is in conformance with the noise ordinance of the General Plan. He stated his concern that we have a non-conforming use and we are doing some- thing that makes it more non-conforming. Chairman Samuelson stated that he felt that the repositioning of the vacuum cleaner was a valid way to decrease offensive noise. Commissioner Kasolas requested that Mr. Brewster point out the location of existing vacuums. He relayed that the Committee had felt that by putting the vacuum in line with washing areas, the customer cannot waste time because there is a line behind him waiting to use the machines. The site plan appears to be conducive to moving people in and out of the car wash as quickly as possible. -7- Mr. Warren Jacobsen, 401 E. Campbell Avenue, architect, appeared before the Commission to state that he had advised the applicant to write a letter requesting that he be allowed to fill the fuel tanks and that this letter be on file; in the event of sale, the purchaser would know the disposition of the tanks. Mr. Jacobsen also pointed out that the addition of a building to the rear of the lot would create an additional buffer for noise. Mrs. Ames stated that the site is also used for people to polish cars, as well as work on engines. She said that there have been people using the car wash as late as 2:00 a.m. Mr. Jacobsen stated that the applicant had discussed putting the lights and mechanical equipment controls on timers shutting off the main equipment and leaving only a minimum number of safety lights, thereby eliminating people coming in late at night. Chairman Samuelson asked Mrs. Ames if she felt the fence between the two properties was adequate. She felt it was; that the main concern was the location of the vacuums near her window. Mr. Heinz Conrad, 59 Kennedy, appeared before the Commission to state that his primary concerns were the trash blowing around the fence and the noise. He asked if the new plans provided fora fence that would stop trash from blowing through his yard. Mr. Stafford stated that it was staff's understanding that the side of the property was not due for additional fencing. The "fencing" indicated on the site plan was not really fencing but a decorative rope between the tire shop and the car wash. Mr. Conrad felt that the proposed plans were a definite improvement of the site, and that minimizing the hours would help a great deal. No one else wishing to be heard, Commissioner Kasolas moved that the public hearing be closed. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Meyer and unanimously adopted. Commissioner Dickson asked about the possibility of on-site signing requesting no music. Mr. Kee replied that this could be made a condition of the use permit. Commissioner Kasolas expressed concern that the signing might emphasize the problem, making it more pronounced. Chairman Samuelson asked if hours of operation would be posted on-site. Mr. Kee stated that the hours could very easily be posted, and that it should be done. Commissioner Pack stated she was opposed to the hours of operation as earlier stated. She felt the hours were much too late, and would rather see a maximum of 9:00 p.m. for the entire facility; anything after that time would be a detriment to the neighbors and in conflict with the health and welfare of the neighborhood. Commissioner Kasolas stated that the hours of operation were discussed at length in this morning's meeting. The Committee felt that 10:00 p.m. during the week was late enough. Most of the noise would be generated from the vacuums. The applicant would like to have the establishment open as much as commercially feasible, since this was his livelihood. He further -8- stated that he did not feel the City of Campbell should roll up its sidewalks after 9:00 p.m., and that we should have facilities available to people who do not work "normal" hours. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Meyer, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas, that UP 79-9 be approved subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet, as well as the following hours of operation: 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Sunday to Saturday for the back building. 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Sundays through Thursdays; and 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays for front buildings; and that Conditions G and I listed in the Staff Comment Sheet be changed to read as follows: "G. Car wash facility to operate under conditions set forth in the Noise Element set forth in the General Plan." "I. Disconnect and remove dispensers, fill and seal fuel tanks as required by the Fire Department." Discussion of Motion Commissioner Campos asked if a noise study would be done after the develop- ment was finished. Mr. Kee stated that at first the development would be considered in compliance with the Noise Element, but if complaints were received down the line, then a noise study would be done. Commissioner Campos emphasized that he was looking for assurances for the people of the community. Mr. Kee restated that this application was a use permit, which the Commission had the power to revoke if the use became a public nuisance. AMENDMENT TO MOTION Commissioner Pack then moved that the original motion be amended to change the hours of operation to 9:00 p.m. closing time every night. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Dickson. Discussion of Amendment Commissioner Campos inquired if the Committee had discussed the impact of closing the facility at 9:00 p.m. Commissioner Kasolas stated that the applicant was certainly not in favor of a 24-hour operation, however he was in favor of something beyond 9:00 p.m. that would be acceptable to the Commission. The Commission felt that the concessions made on both sides presented an acceptable package. Commissioner Meyer felt that the hours were acceptable, and that restricting them further would place a hardship on the applicant. Vote on Amendment to Motion AYES: Commissioners: Dickson, Pack, Samuelson NOES: Commissioners: Meyer, Campos, Kasolas ABSENT: Correnissioners: Vierhus This amendment to the motion failed. -9- Further Discussion of Motion Commissioner Dickson again stated he did not feel it was wise to expand a non-conforming use, or very wise to put more noise in a residential area. He stated he was opposed to this use. Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: Meyer, Campos, Kasolas NOES: Commissioners: Dickson, Pack, Samuelson ABSENT: Commissioners: Vierhus This motion failed. Commissioner Kasolas then moved that the public hearing be reopened and that UP 79-9 be continued to the June 5, 1979 Planning Commission meeting in order that this application could be considered by a full Commission, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. UP 79-11 This is the time and place for a continued public King, L. hearing to consider the application of Ms. Laura S. King and Foodmaker, Inc., for a use permit and approval of plans to remodel a fast-food restaurant (Jack-in-the-Box) located on property known as 1301 Camden Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Kasolas stated that the applicant had met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and that the Committee was recommending a continuance of this item to the June 5 meeting. He noted that a correction should be made in reference to the roof proposed--it should be shake, not metal. Commissioner Kasolas further noted that this application presented a problem that would be coming before the Commission more and more, with older developments updating and remodeling their facilities. The problem with this application involves parking ratio and landscaping. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he felt the Commission was going to have considerable "trade-offs" when deciding if they wanted the parking ratio to conform exactly or if they wanted a newer more aesthetically pleasing develop- ment. He noted that the applicant was in agreement with the continuance. It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, seconded by Commissioner Pack, and unanimously adopted that UP 79-11 be continued to the meeting of June 5, 1979. GP 76-2-C This is the time and place for a continued public Campbell Elem. hearing to consider the future use of the Campbell School Site Elementary School site located on property known as 51 E. Campbell Avenue. Chairman Samuelson noted that staff was recommending continuance of this item because of continuing negotiations with the School District. -10- Commissioner Pack suggested that this item be continued longer than May 15, perhaps to the meeting of August 7. Mr. Stafford indicated that staff would have no objection to this proposal. It was moved by Commissioner Pack, seconded by Commissioner Dickson, and unanimously adopted to continue GP 76-2-C to the Planning Commission meeting of August 7, 1979. At this time the Commission moved to hear the request of Mr. Douglas Brooner, due to the lateness of the hour. Request of Request of Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Brooner fora waiver Brooner, D. of the side yard setback requirement from 9'-0" to 5'-0" to allow the construction of a two-story addition to an existing single-story residence located on property known as 361 April Way in an R-1 (Single Family/Low Density Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Stafford reviewed the application stating that staff had initially recommended continuance because revised plans had not been submitted. However, at this point staff has received revised plans and the Architectural Advisor has recommended approval; therefore staff is recommending approval. Commissioner Kasolas stated that the Site and Architectural Review Committee is recommending that the revised plans provide fora hip roof with horizontal siding. It was moved by Commissioner Meyer, seconded by Commissioner Pack, and unanimously adopted that the request of Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Brooner be approved with the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. TA 79-3 This is the time and place for a public hearing Historic Preservation to consider the amendment of Title 21 of the Ordinance Campbell Municipal Code by the addition of a new Chapter, Chapter 41, entitled "Historic Preservation." Mr. Stafford reviewed the background of TA 79-3 (Historic Preservation Ordinance). Chairman Samuelson asked Mr. Stafford if there were any other cities that had this type of ordinance. Mr. Stafford stated that the draft of this ordinance was modeled after the ordinance of San Jose. Commissioner Pack was concerned about the membership of the Board. She asked if the Planning Commission and the Civic Improvement Commission make up the Board, or do they recommend two persons for the Board. Mr. Stafford answered that the appointed persons should not be members of the Commissions. -11- There was brief discussion amongst the Commissioners concerning the strong wording of the draft. Commissioner Pack asked if the Planning Department was available to take on the responsibility of heading another committee. Mr. Stafford replied that this was a committee that would not meet on a regular basis, but rather as needed. Commissioner Kasolas expressed concern that the ordinance appeared to make the Board more than an advisory body. Mr. Stafford stated that it is to be strictly a technical body to make recommendations from a strictly historical view, making recommendations to the Planning Commission. It would play no role in approving or disapproving applications. Commissioner Campos was also concerned that the Board appeared to be more than an advisory body. The ordinance states "powers and duties." This wording can be very influential. He stated that this type of Board had started in San Jose as an advisory body, and was now much more. The ordinance seems too cumbersome fora small city like Campbell. He felt we might be creating a "monster." Commissioner Dickson stated that he didn't feel there was much difference between the Commission and an advisory board, and that this was the wrong step to decreasing governmental costs. He felt this matter should be a simpler step, perhaps using a staff member to fill the responsibility of expert on historical preservation. Mr. Kee stated that currently Mr. Tom King is filling that position. If the Commission feels that we should only have a staff member rather than a commission or board, then the Commission should forward that recommendation to the City Council. We do need an ordinance, however. The Commission has the power to agree or disagree with any or all of the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Pack indicated she would like to see a simpler ordinance, no special Board or commission, and a zoning district, so that one staff person could make a presentation when an application comes to the Commission. Chairman Samuelson declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Tom King stated that this is a long and complicated document that has come out of a long struggle. However, he felt it was necessary in order to avoid lawsuits. Commissioner Pack asked who would initiate an application for the City. Mr. King responded that the City Council, Planning Department, or Planning Commission could initiate proceedings. Commissioner Pack asked if there was anyone on the staff who has the expertise to recommend historical preservations. Mr. King stated that he had the expertise, but stated that the City may not want only one person deciding which buildings should be preserved. Commissioner Kasolas stated that if the ordinance were approved as drafted, he could see no reason for public hearings to be included as part of the process, stating that a report from staff and recommendation from the proposed Board should be sufficient information for the Commission to act upon. -12- Commissioner Pack asked Mr. King if there was a current historic inventory for Campbell. Mr. King said there was, and it is continually updated by people who have expertise in Campbell's history. Commissioner Kasolas asked if there was any emergency with regard to a specific site, as far as approving this ordinance this evening. Mr. Kee responded there was no specific site mentioned, but that the Council would consider this matter very shortly. Chairman Samuelson inquired about the role of the City Council in the preparation of this draft. Mr. Kee stated that Council had appointed the committee to form the ordinance, and that there were two Councilmen on the committee. Mr. Stafford stated that the committee was comprised of two Councilmen: Messrs. Chamberlin and Paul; two members of the Planning Commission: Messrs. Hebard and Vierhus; and two members of the Civic Improvement Commission: Mrs. Watson and Mrs. Conant. After brief discussion as to the feelings of the City Council concerning the Historic Preservation Ordinance as drafted, it was moved by Commissioner Kasolas and seconded by Commissioner Pack that the public hearing be closed. This motion was unanimously adopted. It seemed to be the general consensus of the Commission that the wording of the draft as it related to the establishment of a special Board was objectionable rather than the concept of an Historical Zoning District. RESOLUTION N0. 1786 It was moved by Commissioner Pack, seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1786 forwarding -the draft of the Historic Preservation Ordinance (TA 79-3) to the City Council with a recommendation of disapproval for the following reasons: amore simple wording is needed; no special Board or Committee should be established, that technical assistance be provided by administrative staff, and an Historical Zoning District be established. This resolution was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Meyer, Dickson, Campos, Pack, Kasolas, Samuelson NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Vierhus GP 79-2 This is the time and place fora continued public City Initiated hearing to consider amendment of the Land Use Element of the General Plan from "Low Density Residential" to "Low-Medium Density Residential" for properties known as 1142, 1154, 1162, 1170, 1180, 1188, 1190 Hazel Avenue; 832, 842, 852, 864, 880 South San Tomas Aquino Road; and 1143, 1155, 1165, 1169, 1177, 1179, 1181, 1183, 1199, and 1207 Smith Avenue. -13- Mr. Stafford reviewed the background of this item. Commissioners Pack and Campos expressed concern that this item should be reviewed by the San Tomas Task Force. Commissioner Dickson stated that this item has been on the agenda fora long time and he felt that it was a matter of housekeeping needed to get the zoning and the General Plan to coincide. He expressed that he was in favor of the staff recommendation. Chairman Samuelson invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. No one wishing to be heard, Commissioner Dickson moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Meyer and unanimously adopted. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, seconded by Commissioner Meyer, that the Planning Commission make a determination that this is not a major amendment; and (a) adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council change the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the subject properties from Low Density Residential to Low-Medium Density Residential; and (b) that this matter be referred to the San Tomas Task Force Committee 'as an informational item, and any comments be forwarded to the City Council. Discussion of Motion Commissioner Pack asked if anyone from the San Tomas Task Force knew that this item was on tonight's agenda. Commissioner Campos noted that it was not on the agenda for tomorrow night's meeting of the Task Force. Commissioner Campos stated his concern that this item should be referred to the Task Force. Commissioner Dickson felt that because the San Tomas Task Force had approved the Heath application, that it was an indication that they had looked at this area already. Commissioner Pack felt that no one was present from the concerned area tonight because they thought all their input was going to the Task Force and they didn't have to be here tonight. Commissioner Dickson pointed out that this item was pending prior to the formation of the Task Force. Commissioner Campos felt that the fact that this item was City initiated was basic to the fact that it should be referred to the San Tomas Task Force. The change of density is crucial to this area. If the intent of the Task Force is to give recommendations, they must be given information. -14- Vote on Motion AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: This motion failed. Meyer, Dickson, Kasolas Campos, Pack, Samuelson Vierhus Commissioner Pack then moved that the public hearing be reopened and that this item be referred to the San Tomas Task Force for review, comment, and recommendation. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Campos and adopted with Commissioners Dickson and Kasolas voting "no." TA 79-2 This is the time and place fora continued public Noise Ordinance hearing to consider the addition of "Title 9 - Noise" to the Campbell Municipal Code. Chairman Samuelson noted that due to the lateness of the hour, the Commission might wish to continue this item to the next Planning Commission meeting. No one wishing to speak on this item, Commissioner Pack moved that TA 79-2 be continued to the May 15, 1979 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Meyer and unanimously adopted. MISCELLANEOUS Special Citizens' Appointment of representative and alternate Advisory Committee to serve on the Special Citizens' Advisory Committee. Commissioner Pack volunteered to serve on this committee, with Chairman Samuelson and Commissioner Meyer volunteering as alternates. Mr. Stafford stated that the first meeting would be Monday, May 7, at 5:30 p.m. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, seconded by Commissioner Campos and unanimously adopted that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 11:25 p.m. APPROVED: ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee, Secretary Car E. Samuelson, Chairman RECORDED: Linda Dennis, Recording Secretary