Loading...
PC Min 01/02/1979PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, 7:30 PM MINUTES JANUARY 2, 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 Commissioners: Meyer (at 7:45), Dickson, Samuelson, Vierhus, Kasolas (at 7:50), Chairman Pack; Secretary Present Arthur A. Kee; Senior Planner Bruce Powell; Engineering Manager Bill Helms; City Attorney J. Robert Dempster; Recording Secretary Jeannine Wade. Absent Commissioner Campos. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Vierhus moved that the minutes of the regular meeting of December 19, lg7$ be approved as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. ELECTION OF OFFICERS It was moved by Commissioner Vierhus and seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that the Commission accept the nominations made on the white ballot, and elect Commissioner Samuelson as Chairman for the 1979 year, and Commissioner Campos as the Vice Chairman for the 1g79 year. This motion was unanimously adopted. Chairman Pack then handed over the gavel to the new chairman, Commissioner Samuelson. Commissioner Meyer entered the Council Chambers at 7:45 p.m. COMMUNICATIONS _ r. Kee reported that communications received relate to specific items on the agenda and would be considered at the time the item was discussed. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 78-3g Continued application of Mr. Melvin R. Hill for Hill, M. approval of plans to construct an industrial building on property known as 355 McGlincey Lane in an M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Vierhus stated that the Site and Architectural Committee is recommending approval of the application with the amendment to Condition H, which is to read "Provide a fire extinguisher system as approved by the Fire Department". He stated that the applicant is in agreement with the condition. Commissioner Vierhus noted that this item had been continued from the last meeting, and that the Public lJorks Department and the Site and Architectural Committee had expressed concern over parking and traffic coming out onto Griffith Lane. This problem has been resolved by revising -2- the layout of the parking lot to allow parallel parking. He further stated that the applicant, Mr. Hill, was very cooperative in resolving the concerns of the committee. It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted that S 78-39 be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and/or added in red on plans. 2. Landscaping plan indicating type and size of plant material, and location of hose bibs or sprinkler system to be submitted for approval of the Planning Director prior to application for building permit. 3. Landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plan. 4. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $3,000 to insure landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking areas within three months of completion of construction, or (2) file written agreement to complete landscaping, fencing and striping of parking areas prior to final Building Department clearance. 5. Applicant to submit a letter, satisfactory to the City Attorney limiting the use of the property to: 1,348 + square feet of office use, 5,670 + square feet of speculative industrial use, and 4,138 + square feet of warehouse use. 6. Alt mechanical equipment located on roofs to be screened as approved by the Planning Director. The applicant is notified as part of this application that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinances of the City of Campbell and Laws of the State of California. A. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. B. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. C. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. D. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the sign ordinance for all signs. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by the Building Department. (Section 21.68.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code.) E. Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple apart- ment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. -3- F. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level. G. Applicant shall comply with all appropriate State and City requirements for the handicapped. FIRE DEPARTMENT H. Provide a fire extinguisher system as approved by the Fire Department. I. Provide one "2A-IOBC" fire extinguisher for each leased space. J. Locate trash enclosure on plans. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT K. Provide a grading and drainage plan. L. Obtain an excavation permit and post surety to install a 25-foot wide driveway approach, remove existing curb depression and replace with standard curb, and landscape remaining right of way on McGlincey Lane. The applicant is notified that he/she shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. _~ PUBLIC HEARINGS PD 78-24 Continued public hearing to consider the application May Investment of May Investment Company for approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow con- struction of 36 patio homes on property known as 595 Union Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development/Low- Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Vierhus stated that the Site and Architectural Committee is recommending approval of plans as submitted. Condition No. 1 on the original application has been recommended for deletion because the Committee felt it was unnecessary. The applicant has revised the plans, and improved the ingress and egress of traffic to the property by making it possible to make only right turns into or out of the development from Union Avenue. Mr. Kee noted that there had been a communication regarding this application. A letter from Mr. Steve Werthmann and Mr. Paul Werthmann, adjoining property owners, was read into the minutes by the Recording Secretary, a copy of which is attached hereto and made an official part of these minutes. The letter requested that a sound barrier wall of permanent structural value be included with this development. Chairman Samuelson asked if this barrier was discussed in the Site and Architectural meeting. Commissioner Vierhus reported it had not been discussed, since the letter had not been available at that time; however a discussion was held regarding fencing material, with redwood board fencing being recommended. Commissioner Kasolas entered the Council Chambers at 7:50 p.m. -4- There was discussion clarifying the proposed traffic pattern, the distances between the homes and the street, and distance between the homes and garages to the fencing. Commissioner Pack asked if a development such as this was classified as a P-D so that it could be developed at less than 6,000 square feet. Mr. Kee replied it was. Chairman Samuelson declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this development. Mr. Lon V.Mills, representing May Investment Company, stated that the developer has plans to build a redwood fence along the property line. It is felt that this will be sufficient, and this is all that has been required in the past. The fence will be approximately 400 feet long, and will be a new fence since there is no existing fence. He had no information concerning the difference in cost between a wood fence and a concrete barrier at this time, but knew the cost difference was considerable. Mr. Beuchtel, 989 Dry Creek Road, presented a concern with the proposed development overloading the current storm drainage system, which is at a low point behind his home. He stated that the storm drain trunk main currently floods, and may not have the capacity to absorb the additional usage of this development. Mr. Bill Helms, Engineering Manager, said he had spoken with the County Drainage Engineer concerning the problem Mr. Beuchtel spoke of, after the last meeting when the problem was first presented. The County Engineer feels that the drain is more than adequate to handle the additional load by a new development, and they are currently investigating the possibility of a local obstruction which may be the cause of the drain overflowing onto Mr. Beuchtel's property. Commissioner Pack thanked Mr. Helms for looking into the problem, and expressed her concern that the City take responsive action towards any problems of the citizenry. Mr. Werthmann appeared before the Commission to express that his main concern was the number of cars leaving the proposed development and the noise factor from such vehicles. He did not feel a wooden fence would be adequate to abate such noise, and again expressed his desire for a concrete wall on the property line. Mr. Marty Hall, developer for May Investment Company, stated that at the present time the lot next door to the proposed development is empty, and that he felt that until such a time as the property next door was developed, there was no way to determine what type of fencing would be necessary. He suggested that the May Investment Company--when the adjoining property is developed--get together with the developers and consider the necessary type of barrier at that time. No one else wishing to be heard, Commissioner Vierhus moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. -5- Discussion Commissioner Pack asked Mr. Kee if there was a precedent regarding this type of barrier around a residential development. Mr. Kee stated that there are different specifications for different types of land use. In the past, a wood fence has been acceptable for this type of development; however, along the expressway, a concrete wall is used for noise abatement. There was considerable discussion concerning the type of fencing required surrounding types of developments with relation to noise. Mr. Kee felt it was the prerogative of the Commission to determine what type of fence or wall would overall benefit the welfare of the community. Commissioner Vierhus felt the discussion was premature since the future of the adjoining property was unknown at this time. Commissioner Kasolas cited examples of residential developments being surrounded by concrete walls when the adjoining property is for commercial use. He asked if the adjoining property would be zoned commercial, and if so, would a wall be required. Mr. Kee stated that normally one could not guess what the property next door will be zoned on the General Plan use. Commissioner Dickson felt it was not the function of the Planning Commission to concern itself with the noise abatement of a vacant lot. RESOLUTION N0. 1760 It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Kasolas, that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 1760 recommending approval of the application of May Investment Company for approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow construction of 36 patio homes on property known as 595 Union Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development/Low-Medium Density Residential) Zoning District, with the deletion of Condition No. 1. This resolution was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Meyer, Dickson, Pack, Vierhus, Samuelson NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Campos ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Kasolas Commissioner Kasolas noted the reason for abstaining was that he is acquainted with one of the adjacent property owners. _~ _. UP 78-16 This is the time and place fora public hearing to Mueller, S. consider the application of Mr. Spencer Mueller for a use permit and approval of plans to construct a second-story addition to a single-story residence located on property known as 85 S. Third Street in a P-D (Planned Development/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. -6- Commissioner Vierhus reported that the Site and Architectural Committee is recommending approval of the application. Mr. Kee felt that the Commission should be aware that much of the work has already been done on the second floor level. He stated that this fact did not alter the staff or Committee's comments on the project. A permit was issued for revision of the first floor level, but did not include the second story. He noted staff is recommending a condition concerning the parking; staff feels that if additional parking is required at sometime in the future, a condition should be included which would require the applicant to remedy this situation. Commissioner I<asolas asked if there was ample room on the site if additional parking were required. Mr. Kee replied there was. Commissioner Dickson inquired if there had been any responses from people in the surrounding area concerning this development. Mr. Kee responded there had been none. Commissioner Pack requested clarification of the square footage of the house. Mr. Kee stated that the total addition of 950 square feet included additions to both the first and second levels. Commissioner Kasolas felt that the Commission did not require 2,200 square foot residences on 7,800 square foot lots to have additional parking and therefore there should be no problem with the present parking. Mr. Kee stated that was correct, and that was why the staff was recommending approval. He assured the Commission that the structure will meet all building codes and requirements, or it will come down. Chairman Samuelson declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against the development. Mr. Spencer Mueller appeared before the Commission to further explain the floor plan of the house. He stated that the two bedrooms indicated on the first level were not actually bedrooms, but rather an office and an extension of the living room area. He felt that since this was really a three bedroom home, to require additional parking was unrealistic. No one else wishing to be heard, Commissioner Pack moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Meyer and unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 1761 It was moved by Commissioner Pack, and seconded by Commissioner Meyer, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1761 approving the application of Mr. Spencer Mueller fora use permit and approval of plans to construct a second story addition to a single-story residence located on property known as 85 S. Third Street in a P-D (Planned Development/ Medium Density Residential) Zoning District, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet, with the deletion of Condition No. 1. -7- AMENDMENT TO MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Dickson, and seconded by Commissioner Vierhus that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1761 approving the application of Mr. Spencer Mueller fora use permit and approval of plans to construct a second-story addition to a single story residence located on property known as 85 S. Third Street in a P-D (Planned Development/ Medium Density Residential) Zoning District, subject to all three conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. nicr~iccinn Commissioner Pack was concerned about the possibility of tearing out land- scaping and putting in parking spaces in a residential area. Commissioner Vierhus commented that the condition was merely a safety valve, and did not mean that the Commission would ever have to exercise it. Commissioner Dickson reminded the Commission that should additional parking ever be needed at this address, it would have to come back before the Commission. Considerable discussion ensued regarding the existing driveways, the condition of such, and the possibility of needing additional parking area. Vote on Amendment AYES: Commissioners: Meyer, Dickson, Pack, Vierhus, Kasolas, Samuelson NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Campos Commissioner Kasolas then moved that an amendment be added to the motion before the Chair stating that the driveways be permanently surfaced. This motion failed for lack of a second. Vote on Amended Resolution AYES: Commissioners: Meyer, Dickson, Pack, Vierhus, Samuelson NOES: Commissioners: Kasolas ABSENT: Commissioners: Campos MISCELLANEOUS TS 78-17 Tentative Subdivision Map: Lands of Williams Lands of Williams APN: 405-25-6 and 47 Mr. Kee reviewed the information contained in the Staff Comment Sheet. It was moved by Commissioner Vierhus, and seconded by Commissioner Dickson, that the Planning Commission find that the proposed tract map is in conformance with the General Plan, and that the Commission recommend that the Council approve this map subject to the condi- tions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet. This motion was unanimously adopted. .~ a .~ -8- Referral from Letter from Mr. Harold Clark, dated November 6, City Council 1978, regarding Campbell Skateboard Park. Campbell Skateboard Park Mr. Kee requested that the Commission listen to the presentation and comments from people in the audience before opening up proceedings for revocation of the Use Permit for the Campbell Skateboard Park. Mr. Kee stated he had reviewed Mr. Clark's letter, and that steps have been taken by the skateboard park to keep children from cutting through the adjoining properties; the fencing has been repaired; and a chain link fence has been installed inside the wooden fence. He further stated that the six-foot chain link fence does not run the full length of the adjoining property-- only in the immediate problem areas. Mr. Harold Clark stated that he was required to put up a good-neighbor fence upon the purchase of his property, and the skateboard park was not required to put up a fence since there was an existing one when the park was built. The problem with the deterioration of the wood fencing belonging to Mr. Clark comes from the skateboards coming up the concrete embankments and going through the board fence with great force. He stated that the current repair solution of the park involves attaching a four-foot chain link fence to his existing wood fence, then putting barbed wire atop his wooden fence. It was his feeling the park should be required to put up a separate chain link fence adjacent to his fence. Mr. Dempster, City Attorney, questioned the location of the fence. He stated that if the fence is on the property line, then the fence belongs to both parties, no matter who erected the fence. Mr. Clark reported that, during a meeting with Mr. Powell, he and the representative from the skateboard park had agreed the park would construct a self-supporting chain link fence next to Mr. Clark's fence. Mr. Kee indicated that when the park was issued a building permit, they were required to fence the area, but a certain type of fencing was not specified. Wood fencing was indicated on the plans, and accepted by the Commission. Commissioner Pack felt that if a certain type of fencing was promised to Mr. Clark during a meeting with the skateboard park, then that type of fencing should be built. Mrs. Ennid Monk, manager of apartments behind the skateboard park, appeared to inform the Commission of the problems she was having on her section of the fence. She stated that tenants of the apartments she manages are unhappy with the slamming of the skateboards against the fence, and that skateboards have flown over the fence a few times. She also stated that additional dirt has been banked against the wood fence and is causing the fence to bow. It is her desire to see the wood fence restored to its original good condition. She stated that she was very unhappy with the mended nature of the fence as it is now. -9- Mr. David Kenyon, Manager of the Campbell Skateboard Park, appeared to report to the Commission. It was Mr. Kenyon's feeling that the park had rectified the problems in accordance with ideas presented by Mr. Bruce Powell. He stated that the park did, however, make a few changes in Mr. Powell's suggestions, intending to save money. He stated that the park had used bulkheads in the ground, replaced rails of the wooden fence with heavier ones, attached 2"x4"'s to the existing posts, and installed chain link fencing. He stated that if one were to throw their full weight against the chain link, one could not touch the wooden fence of Mr. Clark's. Mr. Kenyon felt that although they have not been able to completely stop the traffic of children cutting through the property, they have slowed it down as much as they can. He said the current repair solution has been up about a month with no new problems as far as he could see. All the slatted boards of Mr. Clark's fence have been replaced where needed. The Commission asked if the noise from the park was a nuisance to the residents behind the park. Mr. Kenyon stated that a noise study was done prior to building, and this type of activity was not found to be excessively noisy. Commissioner Dickson stated that if the park had responded to the problem earlier, a lot of time and bad feelings could have been spared. Mr. Kenyon apologized to the Commission. He further stated that the chain link fence is the same height as the wooden fence with the addition of 3 strands of barbed wire on top of the fence to further deflect any skateboards. Mrs. Monk stated that ~ e had not seen any chain link fencing on the other side of the wooden fence, and repeated her appeal for a suitable repair job on the existing fence. It was suggested by the Commission that Mr. Kenyon give Mrs. Monk a tour of his side of the fence and she do likewise. Mr. Kee stated that the staff could take pictures of the area in question if the Commission would like. The Commission felt that this was not necessary. Mr. Kenyon further invited the Commission to come to the park and see the fencing in question. Mr. Kee stated that he would be happy to meet with all the parties involved to work for an amicable solution, which he thought had been attained. Commissioner Kasolas suggested a two-week continuance of this item, which would allow time for the involved parties to meet and try to resolve any further problems. It was moved by Commissioner Kasolas, and seconded by Commissioner Pack that the referral from the City Council regarding the Campbell Skateboard Park be continued until the regular meeting of January 16, 1979• This motion was unanimously adopted. .4 _~ -lo- ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Pack suggested the Commission consider requiring a more permanent type fencing (other than wood) on all developments in the future. nn iniio~iMC~iT Commissioner Kasolas moved that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM. APPROVED: ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee, Secretary Carl E. Samuelson, Chairman RECORDED: Jeannine Wade, Recorder