Loading...
PC Min 07/05/1978PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES JULY 5, 1978 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: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Vierhus, Kasolas, Chairman Pack; Secretary Arthur A. Present Kee; Senior Planner Bruce R. Powell; Engineering Manager Bill Helms; City Attorney J. Robert Dempster; Recording Secretary Jeannine Wade. Absent None APPROVAL OF Commissioner Campos moved that the minutes of the MINUTES regular meeting of June 20, 1978 be approved, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee informed the Commission that items received relate to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at the time the item is considered. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S 78-25 Continued application of Marvin A. Bamburg, A.I.A., Bamburg, M. for approval of plans to construct 20 condominium units on property known as 134 W. Rincon Avenue in an R-2-S (Multiple Family/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Dickson reported that the applicant met with the Site and Archi- tectural Review Committee this morning, and after considerable discussion regarding density and parking requirements it was agreed that this item should be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Samuelson moved that S 78-25 be continued to the July 18, 1978 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Vierhus and unanimously adopted. i4 ~ i. S 78-26 Continued application of Marvin A. Bamburg, A.I.A., Bamburg, M. for approval of plans to construct 17 condominium units on property known. as 236 W. Rincon Avenue in an R-2-S (Multiple Family/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Dickson reported that the applicant had met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. He explained that this item had come before the Committee previously, however the applicant had requested a continuance in order to revise the parking and density. The Committee is now recommending approval of this application. Commissioner Hebard asked Mr. Kee how the parking ratio of this development relates to the new parking ordinance. Mr. Kee responded that the number of parking spaces provided is less than what the new parking ordinance requires, however it does meet the requirement of what was previously recommended by the Commission. Mr. Kee then displayed the plans for the Commission and explained that according to the new ordinance a total of 54 spaces would be required, and the developer has provided a total of 43 spaces as shown on the plans. Commissioner Vierhus moved that S 78-26 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. Fencing plan indicating location and design details of fencing to be submitted for approval of Planning Director prior to application for building permit. 4. Landscaping and fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plan. 5. Applicant to either (1) post a faithful performance bond in the amount of $5,000 to insure landscaping, fencing, 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. 6. All 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 taws of the State of California. -2- 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 apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. 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. H. Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated in the Noise Element of the Campbell General Plan. FIRE DEPARTMENT I. Install one on-site fire hydrant at end of driveway. J. Provide "2A-IOBC" fire extinguishers. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT K. Process and file a tract .map. L. Provide a copy of the preliminary title report. M. Pay storm drainage area fee of $538• N. Obtain an excavation permit to modify existing driveway. - 3- 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. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and adopted with Chairman Pack abstaining because of a possible conflict of interest. .1`. J` i4 S 77-26 Request of Mr. Steven P. Sundeen for a reinstatement Sundeen, S. of plans to construct an office building on property known as 1475 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Dickson reported that the applicant met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. He explained that the time had expired for the approval of plans and nothing has changed since the plans were approved, therefore the Committee is recommending a one-year reinstatement of the plans subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Comment Sheet which had been originally imposed. Commissioner Samuelson moved that S 77-26 be approved for a one-year rein- statement subject to the originally imposed conditions, seconded by Commissioner Vierhus, and unanimously adopted. At this time Chairman Pack inquired if the applicant had received a copy of the previously imposed conditions. A representative of the applicant appeared before the Commission and was given a copy of the conditions by Mr. Powell. ;; ;; ;: PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 78-11 This is the time and place for a public hearing to Rosenthal, M. consider the application of Milton and Inge Rosenthal for a use permit and approval of plans to expand an existing day care center located on property known as 177 E. Rincon Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development/ Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Commissioner Dickson reported that the applicant had met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning and was agreeable to the conditions listed by staff.. He explained that this application is for an addition to an existing facility and the plans are compatible with the existing building. The Committee is recommending approval of this expansion. Chairman Pack inquired if traffic circulation had been discussed. Commissioner Dickson responded that it had been and the Committee found no problems. Mr. Kee stated that staff is recommending approval. -4- Chairman Pack declared the public hearing open and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this project. The applicant, Mrs. Rosenthal, appeared before the Commission to state that they were hoping to get approval for the added space. No one else wishing to be heard, Commissioner Vierhus moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 1712 Commissioner Vierhus moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1712 approving the application of Milton and Inge Rosenthal for a use permit and approval of plans to expand an existing day care center located on property known as 177 E. Rincon Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Vierhus, Kasolas, Pack NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None Chairman Pack notified the applicant that this will go before the City Council for ratification. J~ J~ J` ZC 78-9 This is the time and place for a public hearing to Schwoob, T. consider the application of Messrs. Thomas Schwoob and Profit, S. Spencer Profit for a change of zoning from R-2-S (Multiple Family/Medium Density Residential) to P-D (Planned Development/Medium Density Residential) for property known as 338 W. Rincon Avenue. Chairman Pack inquired if the Site and Architectural Review Committee hacl reviewed this item. Commissioner Dickson responded that it had not come before the Committee. Mr. Kee reported that the applicant is requesting a change of zoning from R-2-S to P-D fora 0.418 acre parcel to allow future construction of a townhouse development; no concept plans had been submitted with this application, however a townhouse type of development would be consistent with recent devel- opments approved in the area. He noted that development plans must be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to issuance of a Planned Development permit. Chairman Pack opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak on this item. -5- Ms. Anna Johnson of Milton Avenue asked Mr. Kee to point out the property in question. Mr. Kee located the property on a map for Ms. Johnson. Mr. Zawalski of 121 S. Milton Avenue appeared before the Commission to explain that once this area is developed there would be so much traffic congestion and the street would become a raceway; he explained that the current residents would suffer from the hazards. Mr. Kee explained that the property is currently zoned R-2-S which would permit an apartment on that lot. The applicant is applying for a P-D zone which give more control of what is to be constructed since there are public hearings before the Planning Commission as well as the City Council for the P-D zoning. Mr. DeGroot of 131 S. Milton appeared before the Commission to report that there are a number of children in the area and to date none of the proposed developments have provided for any kind of play area; he wondered if something like that might be considered. Mr. Kee stated that at this time there were no plans presented for consideration; this item is for only a zone change request from R-2-S to P-D. Plans would have to be considered and approved by the City Council on recommendations from the Planning Commission prior to any development. Mr. Don Rose of Campbell appeared to explain the traffic congestion problems. He suggested that possibly the City could purchase this site for additional parking for John D. Morgan Park. Mr. Kee noted that funds had not been included in the Capital Improvement Program for purchase of that property. He indicated that a suggestion such as this could be directed to the City Council. He further indicated that a similar request regarding additional parking for the park had been brought up to the Council by the Park and Recreation Commission, but thus far a decision had not been made. Mr. Spencer Profit, applicant, appeared before the Commission. Commissioner Dickson asked Mr. Profit why this application is before the Commission at this time without plans. Mr. Profit advised that in talking with the Planning staff he mentioned that the adjoining parcel would be developed at the same time, however plans were not ready at this time for that property and would not be ready for a couple of weeks yet. He stated he felt time would be saved by going ahead with the zoning at this time rather than waiting for the plans. Commissioner Dickson inquired of Mr. Kee if this can be done within the zoning ordinance. -6- Mr. Kee responded affirmatively, stating that one example is the downtown area which was zoned P-D without plans having been submitted. He went on to say that a P-D permit would not be issued until the plans were approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. Mr. Norm Garcia, Creative Design, appeared before the Commission to report that he was in the process of preparing plans for the adjacent property and application would be made fora PD at the time the plans are submitted. Commissioner Hebard stated that he also felt the plans should be submitted along with the zone change. Mr. Profit indicated to the Commission that they wished to have the zone change approved before going ahead with the plans. Commissioner Dickson stated that P-D means Planned Development and thus far no plans have been submitted; there is already a General Plan and zoning, and he wanted to make sure he could look at the plans before he considered the zone change. Commissioner Vierhus mentioned that there are many areas zoned P-D without plans. He also felt P-D zoning gives more control. No one else wishing to be heard, Commissioner Vierhus moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. Chairman Pack noted that normally plans are submitted when a zone change to P-D is considered. Mr. Kee noted that when the Planning Commission and City Council approved a modification to the P=D ordinance this procedure came about, however prior to that on items initiated by the Commission or Council zoning could be considered before reviewing the plans. Chairman Pack felt that it would be much clearer and a better overall picture if the Commission could see the plans at the same time as the zone change. At this time she polled the Commissioners on how they felt. Commissioner Kasolas also felt that it would be more appropriate to review the plans at the same time as the zone change. Commissioner Vierhus felt that there was no reason they could not go ahead and approve this zone change without the plans, he stated he found no problem in zoning the lot P-D. Commissioner Samuelson stated that he was in agreement with Commissioner Vierhus. Commissioner Dickson felt this should be continued in order to see the plans. Commissioner Campos was also in favor of waiting to see the plans. Commissioner Hebard said that he would move fora continuance. - 7- Chairman Pack asked the Commission if they were in agreement to reopen the ' public hearing. Commissioner Vierhus moved that the public hearing be reopened, seconded by Commissioner Hebard and unanimously adopted. Commissioner Hebard then moved that ZC 78-9 be continued to the July 18, 1978 meeting in order that plans could be submitted to be considered along with the zone change, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and adopted with Commissioners Samuelson and Vierhus voting no. :~ t, t The Commission took a break at 8:35 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 8:45 p.m. ~ t ;~ ZC 78-7 This is the time and place for a continued public Wilson, A, hearing to consider the application of Mr. Alfred M. Wilson for: (1) a change of zoning from R-2-S (Multiple Family/Medium Density Residential) to P-D (Planned Development/Medium Density Residential), and (2) approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow construction of six townhomes on property known as 257 W. Rincon Avenue. Mr. Kee explained that there are two recommendations listed in the Staff Comment Sheet; one for denial and the other for approval if the Planning Commission finds the revised plans acceptable. Mr. Kee then summarized the comments in -the Staff Comment Sheet and stated that the time limit within which action should be taken on this item is running short, and only if the applicant requests a continuance would that be possible. Commissioner Dickson reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee met with the applicant this morning, and the Committee is also recommending denial. He further stated that the applicant wished to speak before the entire Commission at tonight's meeting. Chairman Pack invited anyone in the audience to speak on this item. Mr. Al Wilson, applicant, appeared before the Commission to explain that the revised plans now reflect only six units rather than seven. He further explained that he did not totally understand the Commission's desires and that was why he was again before the entire Commission. Chairman Pack asked the applicant if he desired a continuance. Mr. Wilson stated that he would like a continuance. Commissioner Hebard then moved that ZC 78-7 be continued to the July 18, 1978 Planning Commission .meeting, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimoussy adopted. ~ ~ ~ - 8- pp 78-7 This is the time and place fora continued public Peisker, H. hearing to consider the application of Mr. Hans Peisker for approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow construction of a warehouse and office facility on property known as 116 Railway Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development/ Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Dickson reported that the applicant met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning, and is having problems with resubmitting plans since he has had to hire a new designer. The applicant has requested a continuance to the first meeting in August. Commissioner Dickson moved that PD 78-7 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 1, 1978, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. .A. .4 .I. PD 78-10 This is the time and place for a continued public Perfecto, C. hearing to consider the application of Carlos and Maria Perfecto for approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow construction of two residential units on the rear of property known as 109 S. Fourth Street in a P-D (Planned Development/ Medium Density Residential)Zoning District. Commissioner Dickson reported that the applicant had stated at this morning's Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting that his revised plans had not yet been submitted to the Planning Department and requested a continuance to the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Kasolas moved that PD 78-10 be continued to the July 18, 1978 Planning Commission meeting, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted. :; ~; PD 78-11 This is the time and place for a continued public Eberhardt, E. hearing to consider the application of Mr. E. L. Eberhardt for approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow construction of two warehouse buildings on property known as 150 and 164 Gilman Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development/ Industrial) Zoning District. Commissioner Dickson reported that the applicant met with the Site and Architectural Review Committee this morning. The Committee felt the Commission should give this item some consideration; one Committee member felt an approval was warranted, and the other felt there were some problems. The main concern was access from the front of this building onto the street and the fact that trucks would be backing onto the street to get in and out of the building. He stated that most of the concerns of the Architectural Advisor had been resolved, the only unresolved problem was access. -9- Mr. Kee explained that this proposal is for the construction of two industrial buildings; there would be an access driveway coming back to the parking area. A condition has been added to provide that the Park and Recreation Commission review the landscape plan prior to issuance of a building permit. It was the Architectural Advisor's opinion that the recommendation of approval be made since the new plan has been an overall improvement. Commissioner Nebard inquired if this application had been referred to the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Mr. Kee stated that this had been referred to the Water District on May 22, 1978 and a response was received from the Water District on June 9, 1978 stating that "This site would not be subject to flooding from any District facility in the event of a li flood. This District has no right of way requirements from this site." Commissioner Kasolas reported that the questions he raised were that it was his understanding that Gilman Avenue is 60 feet wide, there are no sidewalks or any area along the street for parking. He explained that with the roll-up doors it was proposed for four warehouse buildings. He felt that since the street is so narrow, the entire Commission should review it. Mr. Nelms stated that this is a low-lying area with not much pedestrian traffic, and there is a low volume of traffic in that area. It is just north of Sam Cava Lane. Mr. Norman Garcia, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission to explain how the buildings are situated and how the trucks would enter the building. Commissioner Dickson inquired about the change agreed to on materials. Mr. Kee advised that Condition No. 1 would take care of that condition. No one else wishing to be heard, Commissioner Vierhus moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 1713 Commissioner Vierhus moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1713 recommending that the City Council approve the application of Mr. E. L. Eberhardt for approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow construction of two warehouse buildings on property known as 150 and 164 Gilman Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development/Industrial) Zoning District, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and adopted by the following roll call vote: -10- AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Vierhus, Kasolas, Pack NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None ;e s~ MISCELLANEOUS Referral from Referral from the City Council for reconsideration City Council of a recommendation regarding amendments to the Land GP 78-11 Use Element of the General Plan for the Union Avenue Union Avenue area of the community. Area Chairman Pack asked Mr. Kee if he had a presentation to make on this item. Mr. Kee responded that this item had been referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council at its June 12, 1978 meeting, in order that other areas of Union Avneue could be considered. Mr. Kee then reviewed the background of this item, stating that at its May 16, 1978 meeting the Planning Commission considered possible amendments to the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the Union Avenue study area (which was divided into 5 sub-a re as for discussion) and after holding the public hearing the Commission took action to recommend an amendment to the Land Use Element from High Density to Low-Medium Density for Area 4; the Commission did not recommend any amendments for discussion areas 1, 2, 3, or 5. He further reported that when this item was before the City Council on June 12 , 1978 the Council considered only Area 4 where a specific recommendation for a change had been made and there were several residents present at that meeting who petitioned the Council to consider amending the Land Use Element for Area 5 with particular emphasis on reducing the density of the area currently indicated as "High Density Residential." The Council took action to refer Areas 1, 2, 3, and 5 back to the Commission in order that any additional testimony could be considered. Commissioner Hebard inquired if the City Council thought that the Commission did not look at Areas 1, 2, 3, and 5. Mr. Kee responded that staff only presented the area recommended for change by the Commission, and the Council chose not to accept the Commission's recommendation. He went on to say that at this time staff is attempting to make sure all areas are reviewed (by affirmation or change) so none are overlooked, and staff will present to the Council exactly what has been presented to the Commission this evening. He noted that the decision is up to the Commission to either reaffirm or modify its previous recommendations. Areas 1, 2 and 3 At this time Commissioner Vierhus moved that the Commission reaffirm its position on Areas 1, 2 and 3. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Hebard and unanimously adopted. Chairman Pack then requested that the minutes of the May 16, 1978 be forwarded to the City Council along with the recommendations on this item in order that they might have the opportunity to see what transpired. Area 4 Since Area 4 had not been referred back to the Commission, Chairman Pack noted that action would not be taken on that area. Area 5 Mr. Kee explained the boundaries of Area 5 and located this area on a map for the Commission, noting that it is broken down into three zoning designations as follows: A. Low density area (6.5 acres), which is currently shown on the General Plan as Low Density Residential. This was one area proposed to remain Low Density Residential by the Planning Commission. B. High density area (3.3 acres), which is currently shown on the General Plan as High Density Residential. The Planning Commission did not recommend any change in this area. C. Industrial (4.7 acres), which is currently shown on the General Plan as Industrial. The Commission did not recommend any change in this area. Chairman Pack stated that the Commission had not received a copy of the May 16, 1978 minutes in the agenda packet in order to review the action taken. Mr. Kee then read aloud the portion of the May 16, 1978 Planning Commission minutes pertaining to Area 5 of the Union Avenue Area. These minutes are attached hereto and incorporated into these minutes. Commissioner Hebard stated that to the best of his recollection, he had stated to one of the persons addressing the Commission at the May 16, 1978 meeting that although Area 5-B is shown as High Density on the General Plan, it would be unlikely that a plan could be developed that would allow that to be developed at the maximum number of units per acre, it would most likely be developed at 20 units per acre rather than 27 units per acre. He also noted that with that amount of acreage the difference in the number of units which could be constructed between Low-Medium (6-13 units) and High Density (21-27 units) was not that significant. The difference between High and Medium (14-20 units) was not that significant in the number of units. -12- At this time Mr. Kee noted that the Commission had received a letter opposing the high density, and speaking in favor of a low density. This letter, dated June 28, 1978 from Messrs. Steve and Paul A. Werthman, was read into the record by the Recording Secretary and is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. Chairman Pack invited anyone in the audience to speak on this item. Mr. Bob Francis of 701 Parkdale Drive appeared before the Commission. He first inquired about another hearing to be held before the Planning Commission on July 18 regarding this area. Mr. Kee explained that at that time the Commission will be reviewing an application for a prezoning in this area which will involve only the southwest corner of Union and McGlincey. He further noted that all of Area 5 had been noticed for the prezoning. Mr. Kee stated that this is for a prezoning which means that if the property is annexed the zoning approved should apply. At this time Mr. Francis presented a petition to the Commission signed by approximately 50 property owners who are against the high density land use of the undeveloped southwest corner of McGlincey Lane and Union Avenue. He then distributed a colored map to each of the Commissioners which broke down Area 5 into the following categories: Light Industrial, Single Family Homes, Duplex-Fourplex, High Density Apartments, and zoned Low Density. He explained that the reason more of the property owners hadn't shown up at the last meeting was that they hadn't been notified of the hearing, that only the property affected had been posted. He explained that the purpose of the map was to show the Commission how the area is developed presently, and how the residences act as a buffer between the Industrial and High Density. Mr. Francis stated that upon calling the Planning Office he was told that the Planning Commission would be considering lowering the density at its meeting of May 16, 1978• Chairman Pack explained that the Planning Office was probably reflecting what the Commission's concerns had been, and that is why the Commission was reviewing the area. The Commission also wanted the property owners in the area to have the opportunity to give input. She further stated that the Commission has real concerns about high density in the Union Avenue Area. Mr. Steve Werthman of 2211 Central Park Drive, stated that he and his brother own approximately 3 acres on the corner of Park Drive and Union Avenue and have plans to build between 12 and 15 single-family homes on the site. He further stated that since their property is low density at the present time it would be acting as a buffer to the property in question. He added that this property has been owned by the family for 27 years. Commissioner Hebard inquired of Mr. Werthman if his property were in the County at the present time. Mr. Wirthman responded affirmatively. -13- Commissioner Hebard then noted that zoning would not take place until the time the property is annexed to the city of Campbell. He then asked Mr. Kee if that was the status of the Spillman property. Mr. Kee responded that at the present time the Spillman property is going through a prezoning, which would be on the Planning Commission agenda for July 18, 1978. Mr. Werthman pointed out to the Commission that with High Density on one side and Light Industrial on the back side, he was afraid that it would be hard to market deluxe single-family homes in that area; he was in favor of low density. He further indicated that with the development of two-story townhouses in the high density area, the single-family homes would be even less marketable. Commissioner. Hebard informed Mr. Werthman that the Campbell Planning Commission and City Council have tried to be careful where there is a disparity of density to adjoining properties and try to impose the conditions on the higher density development to recognize what is next door to them and it inhibits the potential development of that higher density. He stated that tools are used to make a "good neighbor" situation in order that two-story buildings are not constructed 10 feet from a property line. He then asked Mr. Werthman if he wished to see this lower than Medium Density. Mr. Werthman stated that that was correct. Mr. Don Leary of 681 Reg as Drive appeared before the Commission to state that his main concern was that he wanted to protect his investment; he expressed concern about property values going down. He stated that the area in question is a very beautiful area of Campbell and he expressed concern about preserving and protecting it. Mr. Steve Twibell of 691 Reg as Drive stated that he too was concerned about property values, advising that he had just spent $10,000 on landscaping of his property and did not want to see his property degraded. He also expressed concern about the bad traffic situation on Union Avenue. He finally stated that he was in favor of low density. Mr. Jim Spillman, representing the owners of the property in question (his mother, father, sister, and an aunt), appeared before the Commission to advise that at the present time he has an application for a prezoning which will come before the Commission on July 18, 1978. He stated that he is also concerned about values in the area, and it has been rumored that he plans to build high rise, however it has not been determined as yet exactly how it will be developed. He stated that he would like to see no change until he is able to negotiate a sale of the property. Mr. Wr~rthman again appeared before the Commission to inquire how many townhomes would be allowed if this property were to remain high density. He then inquired about the units per acre of the "Montreal" development. -14- Mr. Kee responded that approximately 12 units per acre would be a close average, depending upon the design of the development. He further stated that he thought the "Montreal" was developed at approximately 19 units per acre; however, if that project were applied for today it would not be allowed to develop at that density. Commissioner Hebard then added that the "Montreal" was one of the develop- ments that brought about the public hearings on density of this area. The Commission took a break at 10:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:35 p.m. Mrs. Spillman of 2217 Central Park Drive appeared before the Commission to state that they have lived in the area over 50 years and think a lot of their neighbors, and certainly were concerned with the preservation of the area and in no way would they do anything to devaluate the surrounding property. They have tried to find a buyer who will preserve the beauty of the area. No one else wishing to speak, Chairman Pack asked the Commission what their pleasure would be. She indicated at this time that she has been extremely concerned with high density that has occurred in the area even though it is within the General Plan; she also expressed her concern about the very bad traffic situation on Union Avenue. She stated that even though she voted previously for high density, she would feel more comfortable in voting for a medium density. Commissioner Hebard inquired of Mr. Kee how the Commission would go about recommending a change at this time. Mr. Kee responded that the public hearing is currently at the City Council level and was continued awaiting a reply back from the Planning Commission. It would be up to the City Council to make a decision on the Commission's recommendations. He further stated that as he understood it, the Commission could change its recommendation. At this time Commissioner Vierhus moved that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending to the City Council that the General Plan be amended to indicate Area 5-B as Medium Density Residential. This motion failed for a 1 ack of a second to the motion . Commissioner Hebard then stated that he would rather see this area as Low- Medium density, and thus moved that the General Plan be amended to indicate Area 5-B as Low-Medium Density. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Samuelson. Discussion on the Motion Commissioner Dickson stated that there is always a transition point in any type of operation and he believed that the General Plan shows an area developing in a certain way; there has been high density all the way down -15- Union Avenue with a transition to industrial and a little piece of high density and a piece of low density residential. He further stated that he felt the present General Plan was workable and did not wish to see it changed; he felt some of the problems could be worked out at the Site and Architectural Review Committee meetings. He stated he was not in favor of the motion. Commissioner Campos disagreed with Commissioner Dickson, stating that he felt the General Plan is not a fixed General Plan and it is subject to change along the way if it is not meeting the neighborhood requirements. RESOLUTION N0. 1714 Commissioner Hebard moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1714 recommending that the Land Use Element of the General Plan be amended as noted on the attached map, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson, and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Samuelson, Vierhus, Pack NOES: Commissioners: Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Kasolas Commissioner Kasolas noted that he abstained since he was not present during the previous consideration of this area and a possible conflict of interest. Chairman Pack requested that all minutes and action taken on this item be forwarded to the City Council for their review at the time they consider this area. Commissioner Hebard mentioned to the people in the audience that it would be important for them to attend the Council meeting at which this item is considered in order that the Council might also have the opportunity to hear their feelings. He then inquired of Mr. Kee when this item would be before the City Council. Mr. Kee responded that it would be unlikely that it would be on the July 10 agenda, however it would probably be on the July 24 City Council agenda. He advised the people in the audience to call the Planning Office the next day in order to find out exactly when it would again come before the City Council. ITEMS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSIONERS Carlino Property Commissioner Dickson noted that in the Council minutes of the June 26 meeting that discussion had taken place regarding the Carlino property. He inquired if there were anything scheduled to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Kee responded that he was not aware of any plans developed at this point. He noted that there has been discussion between the County Housing Authority and the City Council regarding construction of 200 units for seniors in the city of Campbell. He indicated that there was a copy of a letter in the -16- 0 Planning files from Mr. Burns of the Housing Authority to the City Council indicating he was negotiating with the Can ino family on that site. He also noted that the Park and Recreation Commission had communicated to the City Council their desire to have the City consider securing permanent use of the property for possible parking and park expansion. Planning Policy Committee Chairman Pack noted that at the last PPC meeting it was voted to put the PPC in the hands of the Intergovernmental Council (IGC). ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Dickson moved that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. The meeting was adjourned at 11 p.m. APPROVED: Margaret M. Pack, Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee, Secretary RECORDED: Jeannine Wade, Recorder -17-