PC Min 03/01/1977PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
TUESDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES ~ MARCH 1, 1977
The Planning Comunission 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, Vierhus, Pack, Samuelson;
Chairman Dickson; Secretary Arthur A. Kee; Senior
Planner Bruce Powell; City Attorney J. Robert Dempster;
Engineering Mar~ager Bi11 Helms; Recorder Phyllis Acker.
Absent Commissioners: Campos, Lubeckis.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Pack moved that the minutes of the
February 15, 1977, meeting be approved as received,
seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
COMMUNICATIONS i~ir. Kee reported that the communications received relate
to specific items on the agenda.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS
"S" 76-23 Continued application of Mr. F. James Miller, on behalf
Mi17er, F. J. of the U-Save Rockery, for approval of plans to change
U-Save Rockery the location of landscaping fora rockery/nursery to be
located on property known as 500 Railway Avenue in a
M-2-S Heavy Industrial) Zoning District.
Commissiorser Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee did not review
this project as there ~~as been a request for continuance to the nFxt regularly
scheduled meeting.
Commissioner ~~ack m~o~~~e.~ that "S" 76-23 be continued to the March 15, 1977, meeting,
seconded by C~?rnmissioner .Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
"S" 77 -1 ~ Continued application of Mr. Robert Carl Firato for
Firato, R. C. approval of Mans to convert two retail shops into a
~~isco for young adults on property known ds 476 East
Campbell Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning
cistrict.
Commissioner Pack r•eportr~d that this item was not discussed at the Architectural
Review Committee meetirr as it has been recommended for continuance to the
htarch 15, 1977, meetinn. She stated that a letter had been received relating to
thi s i tem acrd r~~~questf:~d that it be entered i n the minutes . (T hi s 1 etter i s on
file in tyre office of the Planning Department). Chairman Dickson directed the
Secretary to include the letter in the next Planning Commission agenda package.
„ ~~
Com>rnissioner Pack moved ti~at S 77-1 be continued to the March 15, 1977, meeting,
seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and adopted by a 4=0-2-1 vote, Convnissioner
Vierhus abstaining.
~~ 9
~~5~~ 77_2 Continued application of Mr. Richard Alexander for
Alexander, R. approval of plans to construct a two-story, three-uni±
apartment complex on property known as 1535 Van Dusen
Avenue in a R-M (Low-Medium Density Residential)
. Zoning District.
Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee did not
discuss this item as it is recommended for continuance.
Mr. Kee reported that the staff is in the process of contacting the State with
regard to the possibility of their purchasing the property. Staff has also
contacted the County Transportation Agency and it will take a few more days to
receive their response. Staff recommends a continuance to March 15, 1977.
Chairman Dickson asked if the applicant is in agreement with the continuance.
hir. Hugh Tf~omson, attorney representing the applicant, stated that Mr. Alexander
has already received a letter from the State Department of Transportation
advising that, at this time, the State is not interested in acquiring the property.
The funds are not available. He stated there is a possibility that the County
may have some interest in acquiring the land, but he said that the Planning
Commission has the obligation to either pass or reject the application within
two months of the date of filing. That date will be March 24, 1977, and he
asked that the Commission, as an alternative to a continuance, pass favorably
on the application tonight.
Commissioner Pack stated that if the application were continued to March 15, 1977,
it would still be within the 60 day period..
Chairman Dickson stated that even if the County is not interested in acquiring
the property, the Planning Commission will then be faced with the acceptance or.
rejection of the project and in his opinion there would be nothing gained in
a continuance. Mr. Thomson is asking for a decision tonight; either acceptance
or rejection.
Chairm n Dickson asked Mr. Kee that, if in past continuances, have the applicants
usual~~ been in agreement?
Mr. Kee stated that they have. However, there is a 60 day period of time from
the date the application is filed that the Commission has to make a decision and
the staff would recommend a continuance to March 15, 1977, so the Transportation
Agency of the County can submit their, comments.
Commissioner Campos arrived and was seated at 8:00 p.m.
After considerable discussion, Commissioner Pack stated that in all probability
the Commission would act favorably to the project if it didn't fall within the
West Valley Corridor, but unfortunately it does and is a test case. The City of
Campbell F~as been requested by the board of Supervisors to consider the corridor
preservation and after several study sessions, the Commission recommended that
the City Council go on record in favor of the corridor.
Commissioner Pack moved that "S" 77-2 be continued to the March 15, 1977, meeting,
seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
Commissioner Hebard requested that this mutter be brought to t}~e attention of the
City Council at their next meeting.' He requested that the Council be given a full
report of the discussions held tonight.
•:a
"S" 77-5 Application of Mr:'Oleg A. Lubeckis for approval of plans
Lubeckis, Oleg A. to construct an industrial building on property known
as 511 Division Street in a CM:B-80 (Controlled Manufactur-
ing/80,000 square feet minimum lot size) Zoning District.
Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee reviewed this
application with Mr. Ron Jacobs, the applicant's representative, and recommends
approval subject to conditions outlined by staff, with a change to condition No. 1
to read:
1. The applicant is to submit a faithful performance bond in the amount
of $5,000 to insure the removal of the existing structures.
Also, the plans did not show a meter room and the plans have been marked to
indicate a meter room. The applicant is in agreement with the conditions as
recommended.
Commissioner }iebard moved that "S" 77-5 be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. ~fhe applicant is to submit a faithful performance bond in the amount of
$5,000 to insure the removal of the existing structures.
2, Applicant to provide one parking stall for handicapped persons.
3. Parking to be provided as indicated in "red" on the site plan.
4. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and as added in "red"
on plans.
5. Landscape plan indicating type of plant material, location of hose bibs or
sprinkler system and type of fencing to be submitted for approval of the
Planning Director at time of app~~cation for building permit.
6. Landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan.
7. Pait}~ful performance bond in the amount of $3,000 to be posted to insure
landscaping, fencing and striping of parking area within three (3) months of
completion of construction,' or applicant may file written agreement to
complete landscaping, fencing and striping of parking area prior to final
Building Department clearance.
8. Applicant to sign agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney that the property
ti~ill be used as indicated on the plans.
9. Ail meci~anical equipment located on roofs shall be screened as approved by
the Planning Director.
-3-
The applicant is notified as part of this application that he is required to
meet the following conditions in accordance with Ordinances of the City of
Campbell.
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 P~unicipal 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.
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 Gree n
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 flo~r• 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 meet all State requirements for the handicappe:a.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
H. Provide grading and drainage plan.,
I. Obtain excavation permit for driveway relocation.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
J. Provide an automatic fire extinguishing system.
K. Provide "2A-IOBC" fire extinguishers in each leased space.
L. Building plans to shoYr detail of trash enclosures.
-4-
The applicant is riotified that he shall comply Frith all applicable Codes or
Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are
not herein specified.
This motion eras seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously .adopted by the
Planning Commission.
"S" 77-6 Application of l~~r. Gilbert Dale Corona for approval of
Corona, Gilbert Dale plans to convert a residential building into an.office
building on property known as 36 West Campbell Avenue
in a P-0 ~ProfESSionai Office} Zoning District.
Commissioner~ Pack repo!~~ed ~haL the Architectural Review Committee met with the
applicant and t'~!ocrid reco,~,3r~end apps~oval subject to the conditions recommended by
staff with some rrrodific~~tions.
Corrxrrissioner flebard requested that the plans be displayed for the Commission's
review.
Plr. Kee presented f:hY~ plans and the site plan identifying the property. There
is an approved use permit on 'the property and one, of the conditions of the use
permit is that sits acrd a~~chitectural approval be obtained. One of the amended
conditions ti~rould rE~~:luire an earth or brown tone the roof to be approved by
the Planning staff. Alter review by the f;rchitectural Revieur Committee and
the Architectur~al .~,.iz>>sor, it is recon~nended that the wrought iron rail irrgs
and trim around the ~rindo~rs be reiuoved. The Committee and Architectural Advisor
were of the opinion that the b+ailding should be kept as close as possible to
the or~rginal architf>r.tr.!r~L. l.t is also recommended that the landscape plan come
back to the Planning Con~nission for approval.
Commiss oner• Pact: s}«ted that the house reflects the 1920 California bungalow
style a: chitectura arld tE,e Committee ti~ras of the opinion that landscaping should
be in keeping ~rit;~ this era.
Commissionel~ Ffeba}~cr; st~:~t.eci that the '°dressing up" of the building did nothing
to convert tirz* building to loot; like a.n office building. The added features
just seemed i:o detract -'~ror? tl~e building rather than add to it. The committee
felt that the buil~.lir;g ~•rould be more ~~ttractive if it arere left with the style
of architectu;~e ofi its time ar~d the use of landscaping typical of that era would
lend more to the enha°~rcen:ent of the building than any decorative treatment. He
F"urther stated ti~at h~, has. consis%ently upheld the thinking that dwellings being
used for offices sh:~ul~i 1•ie converted so that they no longer look like dwellings,
but in this case the tv~o ideas canvu into direct conflict. He would suggest that.
the building be left as is, representing an era, or deny the application.
-5-
i
He added tt+at the Commission has the choice of leaving it alone or trying to do
something with it, and as a r~~ember of the Architectural Review Committee, he
felt ttrat leaving the lines of the building alone and encouraging the applicant
to renew it rather than convert it would be more attractive.
Chairman-Dickson asked~if this would be setting a trend for the whole block.
Commissioner Hebard stated that each application for conversion from residential
to office use has to be considered on its own merit, and he did not think that
this ane conversion would set the tone for the entire block.
Chairman Dickson disagreed, and stated that each application sets some sort of
trend.
Commissioner ~'ier~hus moved for approval of "S" 77-6.
Commissioner Rack stated that she was of the opinion that the Commission is
obligated to approve the application. However, after the Architectural Review
Committee rneeting she went out and looked at the site and then had some question
as to tivi~rether thi s. eras the best way to go . Maybe there i s something else that
would make better use of the property.
Motion failed due to lack of a second.
Cor~~iss~ic~rner tack +moved for continuance, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson.
Chair~3rs~ra I}~ictcsor~ stated that if the application is to be sent back to the
Architectural R~~v-iEw Committee, there should be some comments from the Commission
for t}~em t~~ consider in their review.
CommissiGr~e~r f•'~~c~; withdrew her• motion, Commissioner Samuelson withdrew his second.
Cor~a-issior+er Samuelson stated that in the past they have taken the position of
trying to, i~m~prtrve on the conversions, and in his opinion, in this application
they ai•e 'Ca~:~~r-+g a step backwards.
City .` ~t~c+rne,y 4~o+npster statod that the Commission i s to decide on the application
that is befor°e them on the agenda. It starts to become a real problem when the
Com~~ission goes out and gathers evidence that isn't presented at the meeting.
The Corrnaiss3orr is not to go out and make observations and base conclusions on
what ti-rey find out. Their decision should be based on the presentation of
eviden~;e at tray }+earync,. tie advised .t hat the Comrission is a quasi-judicial body
and must render a decision based on whether this is a proper application, based
on t#~e codes, based on the information furnished by staff, and based on the
evider+ce presented. The Commission's decision should be based on the evidence
brought as,~t in the .hearing.
Cornmis~ioner~ Vierhus stated that he disagrees with the principle, however, he
recognized what the City Attorney was saying. Some cities have specified that
no pre-site inspections should be made by. either the Commission or Council.
City Attorney stated that the Commission has the staff to gather the facts for
them - they are the professionals and the Commission should be guided by them.
he stated that he was recommending that the Commission not go out in the middle
of the proceedings and inspect the site and use that evidence in making their
decision.
-~-
He stated that he was not saying that they could not go o!at to the site before
the hearing starts - they should not do so in the rt!iddle of the hearing. They
should not go out and gather outside evidence.
Commissioner Vierhus asked if the Architectural Review Committee could go out
in the morning during the meeting and inspect the site.
City Attorney Dempster advised that they could if they took the applicant with
them, and if they felt it was an extraordinary situation.
Commissioner Hebard stated that it was a recommendation from the Committee
to the Commission and without a response from the Commission, he would not be
willing to make the motion.
Commissioner Vierhus moved that "S" 77-6 be approved based on tF!e recommendation
of the Architectural Review Corrr<r!ittee, with the modifications as recommended,
seconded by Commissioner Pack.
Commissioner Hebard stated that if there is opposition to the motion, he would
like to hear it before the vote.
City Attorney Dempster advised the Commission that they could have discussion on
the motion.
Chairman Dickson stated that he would like to see more treatment on the building
so it would not look like a house. Just because the Committee recommended the
removal of the wrought iron grating, doesn't mean there isn't some other kind
of treatment that might give it more of an office stature.
Commissioner Campos stated that the only way the Commission can consider other
treatments is by a continuance.
Commissioner Samuelson stated that nis feelings were along the same lines as
Chairman Dickson's.
Commissioner Vierhus withdrew his mr~ion. Commissioner Pack withdrew her second.
Commissioner Samuelson moved that "S" 77-6 be continued to the next regularly
scheduled meeting for better design, seconded by Commissioner Campos.
Chairman Dickson asked the applicant if he was agreeable to the continuance.
h1r. Gilbert Dale Corona stated that he needed a decision tonight in order to .
know if he could go ahead with tine purchase agreement for the property. He
stated that at the Architectural Review Committee meeting he agreed to do
everything requested by the Committee, and he was at a loss to know what else
he could do.
Chairman Dickson stated he realized that a continuance would be an inconvenience
to him, however, the Commission does have 60 days in which to act on the application.
Vote on the motion - 2-3-1-1, Commiissioner Hebard passing. Following ttie roll call,
Commissioner Hebard voted "aye" on tiie motion - motion failed by a 3-3-1 vote.
Commissioner Vierhus moved that "S" 77-6 be approved subject to the col~ditions
reconnnended by the Architectural Review Committee, seconded by Commissioner Pack.
Motion failed by a 3-3-1 vote.
Mr. Corona asked if there were any questions he might answer in order to get a
favorable decision.
Chairman Dickson stated that he has told the Commission that he could not go along
with a continuance, and the Commission feels that a continuance is in order to
have more discussion between staff and the applicant.
Mr. Corona stated that he did not knoYa how he could continue with the purchase
agreement by having a continuance.
Commissioner Samuelson stated that he~would go along with the original design -
he.was in disagreement with the Architectur°al Review Committee.
Commissioner Pack stated that she was not ready to vote on this application and
would like to see something done with. the property, but did not know just what.
She asked that Mr. Kee read the Ordinance pertaining to conversions.
Commissioner Hebard suyyested that they table the item and take it up later on
in the evening.
Mr. Corona stated that he would make himself available until 2:00 a.m. if necessary.
Commissioner Vierhus moved that "S" 77-6 be tabled on the agenda and come back
as Item No. 12, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
T.A. 77-1 Request of This is the time and place for public hearing to consider
Or. Karen Leland the request of Dr. Karen Leland to consider an amendment
to Section 21.22.030 (c)~(2) of the Campbell Municipal
Code to allow for an increased number of cats for over-
. night hospitalization in a verterinary clinic in a
C-1-S "Coning District.
Chairman Dii:kson asked Mr. I~;ee for his comments.
Mr. Kee advised that the staff recommends approval of the text a~r,~_:ndment, which
would alloa~r overnight boarding as provided by use permit for treatment purposes
only. it is staff's opinion that the controls afforded by the use permit
process can better, control the intensity of use of a veterinary,_ clinic rather
than an absolute nu,nber of five as provided by the current code.
Con~nissioner Samuelson stated that iri his opinion the proposed ordinance
establishes no contp~•ols over the number of animals.
Mr. Kee stated that it does give control by use permit.
City Attorney Dempster stated that the proposed Ordinance requires a use permit
and it dives the Commission more discretion. They can look at each use and each
site and then at their discretion, control the number of cats - one situation
might permit four cats and another eight cats.
Conrnissioner Pack stated that the Ordinance is. not restrictive to cats only. It
refers to any kind of animal and it does not differentiate between a clinic and
a hospital.
Mr. Kee replied that was correct.
-~-
!;
Commissioner Hebard stated that he would be more comfortable with it if there
was some criteria in the Ordinance for establishing the number of animals which
could be kept overnight.
Mr. Dempster stated that they will rely on the staff to give them the conditions,
and the applicants will have to give them evidence.
Commissioner Vierhus stated that in his opinion the amendment gives good control,
and he could see nothing wrong with it.
Chairman .Dickson declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone wished to
speak for or against the proposed text amendment.
Dr. Karen Leland, applicant, stated that this type of clinic ~s something special -
most clinics take care of both dogs and cats, but this will be strictly for cats.
She stated that she has no objections to the conditions set forth. There will
be no objectionable noise or odors coming from the clinic. She stated that the
present Ordinance needs to be changed. She was agreeable to having the number of
cats to be kept overnight decided in each case. She could not operate with only
three or five cats pe rnritted to stay for overnight treatment.
Chairman Dickson asked Mr. Kee if there was any evidence on which the limitation
of three to five cats was based. He would like some evidence on which to base
his decision.
Mr. Kee stated that he was not aware of any evidence. In the staff's point of
view, the amendment as explained would put the burden on the applicant.
Chairman Dickson asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
Mr. Emory, 197 E. Hamilton Avenue, stated that he would have no objections. His
is the only residence that would adjoin this property and he did not think that
a limit of three to five cats would be practical. It would not be practical to
operate a business with such a srna.ll volume.
Mr. Jo n T. Leland, father of the applicant, spoke in favor of the application.
He c~`~ed Dr. Leland's past accomplishments and asked for a favorable vote on
the text amendment and tine use permit.
There being no one else wishing to be heard, Commissioner Vierhus moved that the
public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Pack and ur~animous1y adopted.
RESOLl1"ION N0. 1582 Commissioner~Pack moved that the Planning Commission
adopt Resolution No. 1582 recommending that ttre Council
adopt an Ordinance approving T.A. 77-1 as shown in
Exhibit "A", seconded by Commissioner Vierhus and
adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, 'Jieri~us, Pack, Samuelson, Dickson.
NOES: Commissioners: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners: Lubeckis.
-9-
UP 77-1 This is the time and place for public hearing to
Leland, Dr. Karen consider the application of Dr. Karen R. Leland, D.V.P4.,
fora use permit to allow a veterinary clinic for cats
to be located on property known as 163 East Hamilton
Avenue in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District.
Chairman Dickson asked Mr. Kee for his comments.
f~lr. Kee presented a map shoaring the subject property and advised that the staff
recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed use can be made compatible with the
surrounding area. Details of the site layout will be considered when the
applicant, files for. site and architectural approval.
Commissioner Hebard asked ghat the remedy would be if the applicant did not
meet the. conditions outlineu.
Mr. Kee stated that it would be a matter of revoking the use permit.
It would not be u matter of proving a nuisance, as it is a conditional use permit
and the conditions must be complied with.
A notice that a public hearing would be held on the revocation of the use permit
mould b~ noticed in the newspaper and the property would be posted. The
applicant would then present her case and it would be up to the Commission to
decide if she was in conflict with the use permit.
Commissioner Dickson stated that the recommendation in the use permit is for
20 cats and he asked staff how that figure was arrived at.
Mr. Kee stated that the request was for 25 cats.
Mr. Dempster advised that the staff made the determination that the intensity
of use with 20 cats would be equal to three to five dogs. The staff felt this
was a reasonable number at this time and the applicant could ask for an amendment
to the use permit requesting an incr-~ase in the number.
Commissioner Hf~bard stated that they are setting the number of animals without
seeing the building plans.
Mr. Kee stated that it is a matter of which comes first - you can design the
building fora specific number of cats, or the other way around.
Cho irman Dickson stated that 65 decibels doesn't mean anything unless it refers
to something. Flow are you going to assure it~doesn't exceed 65 decibels?
Mr. Kee stated the same procedure as used irr the past would be followed. It
should be certified by a sound consultant. The staff would have no objection
to including a condition that the sound attenuation should be certified by a
sound consultant.
Chairman Dickson declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone wished to•
be heard.
-10-
Dr. Karen Leland, applicant, stated
the-building will be as noise proof
hospitals are also controlled by the
periodic checks of the premises and
met, a warning notice is served and
for a favorable vote.
that she could assure the Commission that
as possible. She stated that veterinary
State Board of Examiners who make
if they find that conditions are not being
the license can be revoked. Dr. Leland asked
Commissioner Vierhus moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by
Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 1583 Commissioner Pack moved that the Planning Commission
adopt Resolution No. 1583 approving UP 77-1 subject
to the conditions recommended by staff, with a change
to condition No. 3 to include: Building to be
certified by noise consultant. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Hebard and adopted by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Vierhus, Pack, Samuelson, Dickson.
NOES: Commissioners: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners: Lubeckis.
Chairman Dickson declared a recess at 9:45 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 10:00 p.m.
UP 77-2 This is the time and place for public hearing to consider
Hodgin, Bruce E. the application of Mr. Bruce E. Hodgin for a use permit
and a~~roval of plans to convert an existing residence
into an office building can property known as 106 West
Campbell Avenue in a P-0 (Professional Office) Zoning
District.
Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review .Committee met with the
applicant and reviewed the application. The Committee recommends continuance
in order that the applicant can submit revised plans and he is in agreement to
the continuance to the March 15, 1977, meeting.
Commissioner Pack moved that UP 77-2 be continued to March 15, 1977, seconded
by Con~nissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
P1~ISCELLANEOUS
Chairman Dickson announced that with the Commission's approval, the Commission
would move on to Item No. 10, Referral from the City Council - the tentative
subdivision map of the Lands of Locurto and three additional alternates to
be reconsidered by the Planning Commission.
Chairman Dickson advised that a petition dated February 15, 1977, and signed
by 25 residents of the area had been received requesting that the Commission
resubmit the Alternate Plan that was accepted by the Commission on February 1, 1977.
(Petition on file in the office of the Planning Department). -
Chairman Dickson asked h1r. Kee for his comments.
Mr. Kee stated that this item was referred back to the Planning Commission with
the request that they review the four alternatives attached to the staff continent
sheet and either reaffirm the previous Commission recommendation or recommend
Alternate No. 1 back to the City Council.
At the City Council meeting, the Council was concerned that all four alternatives
had not been discussed by the Planning Commission. The staff was also directed
to prepare a report in terms of priorities on the four alternatives. Mr. Kee
read each alternative so everyone in the audience would be aware of what was
being discussed, and presented maps showing the four alternatives.
Chairman Dickson asked if there Vrere any comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Hebard asked for a clarification as to what the Commission was
supposed to do. Is it necessary that we select or recommend one, and only one
of these alternatives?
Mr. Kee stated t}rat it was his understanding that it would be a recommendation
back to ttre City Council on one of the alternatives. The staff recommendation
is that the Conti~nission review the four alternatives and either reaffirm Alternate
No. 2, ar recontinend Alternate No. 1 to the Council.
He state~e~ that one of the concerns of the City Council was that all four of the
alternatives had not beery discussed in detail by the Planning Commission, and
they referred it back to the Commission so all four alternatives could be .
considered in detail. The Planning Commission should either reaffirm the same
recommendation and send it back to the Council or if after hearing the comments
from t}~e people in the audience another alternative is preferred, then send that
one back.
Commissioner Pack asked for an opinion of the City Attorney. She asked why
the Commission has to look at more than what was presented by the applicant.
Mr. Dempster advised that the Commission has been requested by the Council to
do so. It eras felt that there were a number of persons at the last Commission
hearing that were not properly allowed to speak or that they were risinformed
and for that reason they didn't discuss all the alternatives. T}~a Council would
like to give these people the opportunity to review the alternatives.
Mr. Kee stated that he con>nrented to the Council that they had no official map
on the other two alternatives and that was the reason the other two alternatives
were not discussed by the Commission., By a 3-2 vote of the Council it was
referred back so the Commission could consider all four alternatives. They
wanted to make sure that every opportunity was given to the Commission and the
people in the audience to review all four alternatives.
City Attorney Dempster suggested that in complying with the City Council's wishes,
that the matter° be opened up for discussion and tiie people in the audience be
allowed so speaF;.
Chairman Dickson asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in support of
Alternate No.~l. There-was no one wishing to be heard.
Chairman Dickson asked if anyone wished to speak in support of Alternative No. 2.
-12-
Mr. Kee advised this is the alternative that was previously recommended for
approval by the Planning Commission to the City ,Council and is the alternative
on which the petition eras submitted expressing approval.
Mr. Don Rose, 1095 Hazelwood Avenue, stated this is the best proposal that they
could possibly come up with. Let's get it back to the Council for their approval. '-
R4r. Evans, 675 Louise Court, stated that he was in favor of the Commission's
original approval and he was in agreement with the previous speaker.
Chairman Dickson asked if anyone wished to speak in support of Alternate No. 3.
Mr. Robert Eanes, 965 Hazelwood Avenue, stated that he was not so r~uch in favor
of Al~terriate No. 3 or Alternate No. 4 but he thought they should have been given
a proper hearing in detail. He supported these alternatives at the City Council
meeting, however, he agreed with the information that he had received from
staff which outlined the engineering reasons why long cul-de--sacs should not
be considered. This information was not available before this.rrreeting for
them to study. Ho did feel that Alternate No. 1 was a bad solution as far as
the community is concerned and that Alternate No. 2 is acceptable. He appreciated
the fact that the staff had put on record their objections to the cul-de-sacs.
In his opinion, Alternate No. 2 is much more desirable than Alternate No. 1.
Chairman Dickson stated that he lives on a street that carries some traffic and
he asked why it is that people on Hazelwood feel that Hazel Avenue should
carry the traffic and why not carry their fair share.
fiir. Eanes replied that possibly there are no more homes on Hazel than on Hazelwood,
but with the addition of fourteen more homes there might be more traffic on
Hazelwood and there might be more than their fair share of traffic. _
Commissioner Samuelson asked what his feeling was about the barrier on Hazelwood.
Mr•. Eases replied that he would like to have it made a permanent barrier.
Mr. Warren Greenway, 1000 Hazelwood Avenue, stated that the position he was
talkinc~ about is the impact of the motorized vehicles, from the parking and
traffi. standpoint. Alternate No. 3 is a sterile plan, Alternate No. 4 is a
little more exotic and he was totally opposed to Alternate No. 1. He stated
that they have the problem right now of cars being driven through the fence at
the enci of Hazelwood.
Chairmt.n Dickson asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
h1r. Al Romero, 671 Craig Avenue, stated that he supported the alternative
supported by h1r. Eanes and Mr. Greenway for the reasons mentioned.
Commis~:ioner Vierhus stated that the other speakers mentioned Alternate No. 2
as acceptable and he asked h1r. Romero if he felt that way.
Mr. Ror~~ero stated that in his opinion they should scrub No. 1 and consider the
other alternatives.
Chairman Dickson asked if anyone wished to speak in support of Alternate No. 4.
h1r•. Romero thanked the Commission for their total consideration.
-13-
Conunissioner Pack moved that the Commission again accept Alternate No. 2 and that
they send it to the Council for their approval and give the reasons for
recorrunending Alternate No. 2 as staff has recommended - it is a workable plan
and serves the needs of the most amount of people. In accepting this alternative,
the Commission is considering people.rather than motor vehicles. Also, in
recommending Alternate No. 2, the Commission ackno~rledges receipt of a petition
bearing approximately 25 signatures in support of Alternate No. 2. Motion seconded
by Commissioner Samuelson.
Chairn~an Dickson asked if there was any discussion on the motion.
Commissioner F{ehard asked that by recommending No. 2, does that mean that the
Council Yrill consider only Alternate No. 2 or will they be looking at all four.
Mr. Kee advised tf~at there are only two alternative maps. There is no way that
the cul-de-sacs can be considered without having direction to the applicant
to file anather tentative map.
Commissioner Hebard asked i~f this would preclude the Council from considering
Alternate No. 1.
Mr. Kee stated that ttrey have a tentative map and they could consider it. The
applicant teas prepared a map on Alternate No. 1 and the staff has found it in
order, but the Comnnssion did not recommend that one. Yes, the Council could
approve that map if they chose to do so. It has been heard by the Commission.
Commissiorer~i='ack stated that she would like to point out that Alternate No. 2
is cer~tair~ly recommended by the greatest number of people in the area. Why
would the Con~nission recommend anything else to the Council?
Commissioner Hebard asked how much flexibility the Council has.
Commissi~rcer~~ Pack, stated that as fa~ as her motion goes - none. She was recommend-
ing Alterr~~ate Rio. 2.
Commissioner ~febard stated they could consider Alternate No. 1. They could not
consider Alternate No. 3 and 4-but trey could consider No. 1.
Mr. Dempster advised that the Commission has made their recommendation to the
Council. Ordir-arily they do not have two or three choices. There is just one
map ar~d you eitiier° accept or deny it. •
Vote ora tt~e mvtior~:
AYES: Cor~Etissianers: Hebard, Campos, uierhus, Pack, and Samuelson.
NOES: Com~zissioners: Dickson.
ABSENT: i_.ubeckis.
Chairman Dickson stated the reason he voted against Alternate No. 2 is that he
feels it is nxtr~i~r~ely unfair to have Hazel Avenue carry the traffic that should
be carried by Hazelwood. Everyone should carry their fair share. He did not
think it was a logical plan to cut the street up. He advised that the matter
would be before the Council at the March 14, 1977, meeting.
-14-
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Plan Line Amendment This is the time and place for public hearing to consider
Civic Center Drive an amendment to the adopted plan lines for Civic Center Drive
Chairman Dickson asked Mr. Kee for his comments.
Mr. Kee advised that at the Council meeting of January 24, 1977, the Council
directed the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing in order to consider
a possible amendment to the plan line for the north loop street so that none
of the existing main buildings would be affected. In April, 1975, the consulting
firm of George Nolte and Company made a traffic safety and adequacy evaluation
and as a result, an amendment to the official plan line was adopted. After this
amendment was adopted, the plan lines showed the north loop cutting through a
portion of the main building on the grammar school site. If this plan line is
followed and part of the main building is removed, there is some concern over
the effect this will have on the possible future use of the building. The
staff is of the opinion that either of the two plan lines would be workable in
terms of street alignment and design.
Mr. Nelms advised that there is an adopted plan line which was recommended by
the firm of George Nolte and Associates and it is a workable plan.
Commissioner Samuelson stated that at the time this plan line was adopted, there
was discussion regarding saving the trees which would now be removed if the
new plan line is adopted.
Commissioner Campos stated that when the building was inspected, there was
discussion about the buildings and he recalled that there was only a small
part of the building to be removed and did not involve cutting through a major
building. Fle did not think that there would be too much of an impact by
tearing that portion of the building down.
Mr. Kee stated that if this portion of the building is removed, it would
undoubtedly affect the architectural character of the building. Leaving it
intact would give more flexibility in the development of the propF~rty.
Commissioner Vierhus asked the difference in dollar valuation between the two
plan lines.
Mr. Helms advised that the City has had both alignments appraised, however, both
cost figures are confidential at this, time. He presented a map sF,owing the
present and proposed plan lines.
There is a grove of eight large cedar trees plus a group of redwood trees and
the amended plan line would remove four cedars and one redwood. The suggested
plan line would clear the building entirely.
Commissioner Pack asked why George PJolte and Associates suggested the present
plan line.
Mr. Helms stated that at the time of the adoption of the existing plan line, it -
was the staff's understanding that the wing of .t he building had no significant
value and that wing could be removed and the trees would be saved. Since that
time, the Council has requested that an amended plan line be considered by the
Planning Commission and City Council that would clear that building.
-15-
Chairman Dickson asked if there is a difference in land acquisition in the two
plans.
Mr. Helms responded that the existing adopted p1 an line would call for a total
acquisition from the school district of 52,000 square feet. The proposed plan
line would call for approximately 40,000 square feet - a difference of 20 percent.
After some discussion, Commissioner Pack stated that she would like to have
comments from the Civic Improvement Commission and the Parks and Recreation
Conmission and Chairman Dickson concurred.
Commissioner Fiebard stated that the. removal of the wing of the building would
certainly impair the use of that building and could reduce the sale price of
the property. Fror~i the standpoint of the school district, leaving that building
intact will give them the most flexibility.
Chairman Dickson declared the public hearing open and asked if ,anyone wished to
speak for or~ gainst the proposed plan line for the north loop street.
Mr. Henry Cary, 113 North Second Street, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation
Commission, stated that the commission has been polled informally by him but
he thought it wise that the Commission refer the matter to the Parks and
Recreation Corr~n~ission and the other commissions. The Parks Commission has had a
lot of discussion and -their position has to be that the add-on wing of the building
is not a historical part of the building and is of far less value aesthetically
than thoso five big trees. The Parks Commission supports the plan line as
origina~ll,y adopted. Mr. Cary stated that speaking as a private
citizen, drat piece of property is commercially the most valuable piece of
property Campbell has. I-Eamilton School is being closed and within a few years
another schoo~ will be closed, and if they are talking about saving the
granunar sc!-roo~~ site for the use of the community, why not get a site that has
all the facilities.
There being nti~ ore els~:~ pr°esent wishing to speak, Commissioner Pack moved that
the Plai Line Arnondrnent to Civic Center Drive be continued to the first
meet i r~C i r~ ,~,pri 1 arrd teat the matter be referred to the Ci v i c Improvement
Conunis~ion, t~~re Parks and recreation Commission, the Campbell Union Elementary
School District Fsoard of Trustees, and the Chamber of Commerce for their comments,
seconded by Corsrnrissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted.
MISCELLANEOUS
T.S. 77-1 Tentative Subdivision f~1ap - Lands of Fernandez and
Lands of I~z:~rrra.rrdcz Morante. A.P.N. 306-39-45.
and Morante
Chairn~an Dickson asked Mr. Kee for his comments.
Mr. Kee advised that the City Council adopted an Ordinance approving the plans,
elevations, and development schedule of Mr. Pat Swift to allow construction
of eight patio-style homes in a P-D Zoning District and the subdivision map would
divide the parcel into the eight single-family lots with an average area of
approximately 4,400 square feet. The staff reconunends approval subject to the
conditions outlined in the staff report.
Chairman Dickson asked if the land use supports this density.
Mr. Kee advised that it is below the density indicated on the General Plan.
i~
Commissioner Hebard moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
T.S. 77-1 to the City Council subject to the recommended conditions,, seconded
by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS
"S" 77-6 Continued discussion on the application of Mr. Corona
Corona, Gilbert D. to convert a residential building into an office building
on property known as 36 West Campbell Avenue.
Commissioner Samuelson stated that he would support the original plans submitted
by the applicant.
Commissioner Hebard stated that Chairman Dickson and Commissioner Campos
indicated their opposition to approval was that it was not a conversion of a
residence to an office building, and they u~ere opposed to offices being housed
in a dwelling. He-said that he felt uncomfortable going with tine recommendation
and he would join in a denial.
Commissioner Samuelson moved that "S" 77-6 be approved as originally submitted,
seconded by Commissioner Pack.
Amendment No. 1: Chairman Dickson amended the motion to have vertical slats
across the front elevation as approved by the Planning
Director, in lieu of the iron grating.
Commissioner Campos stated that the motion is to approve the original plans and
now they are being modified. They are redesigning the building.
Chairman Dickson stated that normally the item would be referred back to the
Architectural Review Committee. Flowever, the applicant has a problem and needs
approval tonight.
Comrraissioner Hebard seconded the motion to modify.
Amendment No. 2: Commissioner Pack moved that the roof material and color and
stucco color be r~;_,~roved by the Planning Director and the land-
scaping plans to ~e brought back before the Planning Commission
and that there be a ramp at the front entrance for the handi-
capped. h1otion seconded by Commissioner Samuelson.
Amendment No. 3: Commissioner Hebard moved that the decorative wrought iron on
the plans be removeYJ, seconded by Commissioner Vierhus.
Vote on Amendment No. 3: Unanimously adopted:
Vote on Amendment No. 2: Unanimously adopted.
Vote on Amendment No. 1: 4-2-1, Commissioners Hebard and Campos voting "no".
Vote on the original motion with the amiendments 4-2-1, Commissioners Hebard
and Campos voting "no". Approval subject to the following conditions: __
-17-
1. Vertical slats across front elevation to be approved by the Planning Director.
2. Roof material color and color of stucco to be approved by the Planning Director.
3. Ramp at the front door to provide for the handicapped as approved by the
`' Planning Director.
;.,_,` ,,~~;'~4. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and as added in "red" on plans.
~-:" ~'..,.''S. Landscape plan indicating type of plant material, location of hose bibs or
' sprinkler system, and type of fencing to be submitted for approval of the
~~- ~~~ Planning Commission at time of application for building permit.
6. Landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan.
Faithful performance bond in the amount of $3,000 to be posted to insure
landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking area within three (3) months
of completion of coritruction, or applicant may file written agreement to
cornplete landscaping, fencing, and striping of parking area prior to final
Building Department clearance.
7. All mechanical equipment located on roofs shall be screened as approved by
the Planning Director.
The applicant is notified as part of this application that he is required to meet
the following conditions in accordance with Ordinances of the City of Campbell:
A. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Section 21.50
of the Campbell l~lunicipal 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 t~3usricipal Code.
C. Plans sub3rrtfeci to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate
clearly the location of a71 connections for underground utilities including
water, sevrer°~, e-electric, telephone and television cables, etc.
D. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the Sign
Ordinance for all signs. too sign to be installed until application is
approved and per•rnit issuF~d by the Building Department.
E. Ordinans.e i`8o. 7ra2 o-f the Campbell` Municipal Code. stipulates tFat any contract
for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbace, and rubbish
produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green
Valley Disposal Corrrpany. This requirement applies to all single family
dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial,
manufacturing, and constru;:tion 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 fee~ce and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire
Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level.
G. Applicant shall meet all State requirernents for the handicapped.
-18-
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
H. Pay storm drainage area fee of $383.00.
I. Provide grading and drainage plan to Director of Public Works.
J. Obtain an excavation permit to relocate the electrolier and power pole and
realign the curb, gutter, and sidewal{; to match the adjacent improvements.
K. Dedicate right-of-way as determined by the Department of Public Works to
provide a smooth transition to property to the east.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
L. Provide a ".2A-lO6C" fire extinguisher.
The applicant is notified that he shall comply with all applicable Codes or
Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this development and are
not herein specif-ied.
Commissioner Campos moved that the City Attorney be instructed to give the
Planning Commission some written guidelines on pre-site inspections, seconded
by Commissior~er• Vierhus and unanimously adopted.
ADJOURN~4ENT Commissioner Pack moved that the meeting be adjourned,
seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously
adopted. The meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m.
A~
APPROVED: ~~~ _ j j>~t-~~eyv
~ DuWayne ickson, Chairman
ATTEST:
Arthur A. Kee, Secretary
-19-