Loading...
PC Min 01/04/1977 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA TUESDAY, 7:30 P.~~. MINUTES JANUARY 4, 1977 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 Conunissioners: Hebard, Campos, Vierhus, Dickson, Present Samuelson, Pack; Secretary Arthur P,. Kee; Senior Planner Bruce R. Powell; Senior Planner Philip J. Stafford, City Attorney J. Robert Dempster; Engineering Manager Bill Helms; Recorder Phyllis Acker. Absent Commissioner Lubeckis APPROVAL OF MIfdU1~ES Acting Chairman Dickson corrected the minutes of December 16, 1976, page 8 second paragraph following the words "failed by the following roll call vote" to add in parenthesis ("after Commissioner Dickson had been advised by the City Attorney that he could not abstain"). Acting Chairman Dickson referred to the first line of page 13 which states: "Mayor Doetsch" and asked if it was correct to refer to Mr. Doetsch as "P~ayor" when he is the applicant. City Attorney Dempster advised that ,; it made no difference. Commissioner Pack moved that the minutes be approved as corrected, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee reported that the communications which have been received relate to specific items on the agenda. ELECTION OF Commissioner Pack moved that a white ballot be cast for OFFICERS Chairman Pro ~fempore Dickson for Chairman of the Commission ADDENDUI~1 N0. 1 for 1977, seconded by Commissioner Hebard and unanirnoulsy adopted. _ Comn-issioner Vierhus moved that a white ballot be cast for Commissioner Pack for Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission for 1977, seconded by Commissioner Hebard and unanimously adopted. Chairman Dickson expressed his -°egrets that Commissioner Lubeckis could not be present. Commissioner Lubeckis is recuperating from heart surgery. - 1 ARCHITECTURAL APPRaVALS "S" 76-42 ConriTrissioner Samuelson reported that the Architectural DeGrange, A. Review Committee met with the applicant and recommends approval of the application of Allen DeGrange for approval of plans to construct a new emergency animal clinic on property kno~vn as 1657 South Bascom Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading plans, and fence details to be approved by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. 2. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and as added in "red" on plans. 3. 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 application for building permit. 4. Landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. 5. 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 construction, or applicant may file written agreement to~ complete landscaping, fencing and striping of parking area prior to final Building Department clearance. 6. All mechanical equipment located on roofs shall be screened as approved by the Planning Director. 7. Applicant to provide documentation that the building will be constructed of materials which will insure that no sound exceeding 65 decibels shall be ~• audible on the exterior of the building. 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 27.50 of the Campbell Punicipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. i3. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. C. Plans subrn~itted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities, including water, setirer, 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. - 2 - 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 a.rea(s) appro~%ed by the Fire Department. Unless other- wise 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 meet all State requirements for the handicapped. PUBLIC 4!ORKS DEPARTt~EtdT H. Obtain e;;cavation permit for street tree installation. T. Pay storm drainage area fee @ $765 per acre. J. Provide grading and drainage plan for review and approval of City Engineer. FIRE DEaARTt~tENT K. Provide one on-site fire hydrant at the southeast corner of the building. This hydrant shall be connected to a 4" water main and in turn connected to the public ~~~ater main on Bascom Avenue. L. ,Provide "2A--lOBC" fire extinguishers. 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 specified. Commissioner Samuelson added that the plans had been red lined to indicate parking in the rear of tt~e property and fencing along the rear portion of the property. Commissioner Pack asked if any communications from surrounding neighbors had been received ar,d P1r. Kee reported that there had not been any reports of any .complaints from the neighbors. Commissioner Vier~t~us asked if the existing structures would be removed. Mr. Kee stated that the plans before the•Cominission indicate that the temporary structures will be removed. CorrBnissioner Hebard moved that "S" 76-42 be approved as recommended, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. -3- "S" 76-43 Commissioner Samuelson reported that the Architectural Y.alantis, 6. Review Committee met with the applicant and recommends approval of the application of Mr. Basilios i',alantis • for approval of plans to construct a four-unit apartment complex on property known as 227 North Harrison Avenue in a R-M-S (Low-Medium Density/Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District subject to the following conditions: 1. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and as added in "red" on plans. 2. 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 application for building permit. 3. Landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with tine approved landscape plan. 4. Faithful performance-bond in the amount of $5,000 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. 5. 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 tine fo71o~•ring 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 appro- ~, priate concrete curbs or bumper guards. B. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell i~iunicipal Code. C. Plans submitted to tare Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including ' water, sever, 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. 732 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal or refuse, garbage, wet garbage, and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made witfl Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. -4- d. F. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in areas approved by the Fire Department. Unless other- wise noted, enclosures shall consist of a concrete floor Burr°ounded by a solid wall or fence and have pelf-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level. G. Applicant shall meet all State r°equirements for the handicapped. PUQLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT H. Enter into agreement and post bonds for construction of public street improvements. I. Pay storm drainage area fee @ $765 per acre. J. Driveway width to be a minimum of 25 feet wide. 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 specified. Commissioner Pack asked for an explanation as to the ingress and egress to the property from Central Avenue. There is a lot of traffic generated by the service station on the corner and she asked for the committee's recomerendation as to tare access to the property. Mr. Kee stated that the only access to the property is from Central Avenue. There is one driveway indicated on the plans and this would seem tivorkable. The traffic circulation has beer: reviewed by the traffic engineer. Commissioner Pack moved that "S" 76-43 be approved as recommended, seconded by Corr>;nissioner Campos arrd unanimously adopted. "S" 76-45 Commissioner Samuelson advised that the Site and Finch, E. L. Architectural Review Commiteee met with the applicant and recommends approval of the application of E. L. Finch, and Control Data Corporation- Data Services, for approval of plans to place three trailers for 120 days on property known as 700 West Hamilton Avenue in a C-2-S {General Commercial) Zoning District. Conxnissioner Samuelson stated that the applicant, at the meeting, also requested permission to brine in a trailer for storage of forms to be used in the busirress. He asked to be allowed to use .this trailer for 30 days or less once each quarter. Commissioner Vierhus asked if the applicant is asking for approval of something that is already on the pr°operty. Mr. Kee advised that the trailers are in existence at this time. However, there is an application f filed. Normally,~if there is a violation of the ordinance the staff would contact the owner and advise him of the violation and advise him that he has the right to apply for approval. The applicant has filed the application --- and if the Commission sFrould deny the request, he would have to remove the trailers. Commissioner Vierhus moved that "S" 76-45 be approved subject to the follovring conditions: 1. Applicant to post $5,000 faithful performance bond to insure removal of the trailers by April 4, 1977. 2. All three trailers shall bear an appropriate insignia from the California State Housing and Community Development Departments. 3. A ternporary storage trailer be permitted each quarter for less than 30 days subject to approval by the Planning Director. Motion seconded by Commissioner Hebard and unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARINGS V 76-6 This is the time and place for public hearing to consider Boor, Daniel 0. the application of Daniel 0. Boor fora variance to Section 21.08.060 of the Campbell Municipal Code to allow the creation o~F four lots with an average width of 59.3 feet, for property known as 1612 West Hacienda Avenue, located in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Chairroran Dickson asked h1r. Kee for his comments. Mr. Kee advised that the applicant is requesting approval of plans to subdivide a 0,87 ace°e parcel of land into four 9,400 square foot lots. The proposed sub- division ti~:ould result in lots which are similar to the surrounding parcels. The proposed lots trould be approximately 8 inches short of the required 60 foot width, but ~~aould ccsntain over 50I more land than the minimum required by the R-1 Zone. Comarrissiorr~~r Hebard asked the staff to provide the Commission with some guidelines to follrrsva in mai;ing ts,e necessary findings to grant the variance. ~~f Mr. Kee stated that the basis far granting the variance would be that the lots would be sin;ilar to other lots in the area that have been approved - those lots to the west of the subject property. The shape of the lot which is quite long and the width would almost be enough for two 60 foot lots. If the Commission feels ttrat the 59.3 facet: lots are not sufficient, they should deny the requested variance. If they feel it is sufficient width, they should approve the variance. Chairman Dici:,son declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone wished to be heard. A resident of ti7e adjoining property expressed concern as to how the parcel would be divided and asked if they could infl~inge on his side yard. Mr. Kee advised that if the variance is granted, the applicant would have to sub- mit a parcel map showing the division of the property and the lots would have to comply with the setback requirements of the ordinance. Mr°. Tom ~dilliams, Civil Engineer for the project, 1261 Lincoln Avenue, San Jose, stated that the two houses existing on the property do not go over the property - line. They had submitted a tentative map for processing and it ti,~as at that time they realized that there was a minimum 60 foot width requirement and that is the reason for the variance request. They will meet all the setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. Chairman Dickson asked if anyone else wished to be heard. Commissioner Pack asked if the variance is granted, would it have any bearing on what is going to take place if the project does not meet the code. ,,. Mr. Kee stated that only the variance is before the Commission to divide four lots into 59.3 feet rather than 60 feet. The parcel map has been filed and it must meet the code requirements, which -includes the minimum width between building wall and the property line. The Commission, at this time, is not considering a sub- division, but a request for variance fora reduction in the lot widths from 60 feet to 59.3 feet. RESOLUTIOP! N0. 1571 Commissioner Hebard moved that the Commission adopt - Resolution No. 1571 approving V 76-6, application of Daniel 0. boor based on the findings that the 59' 3" lots would be consistent with the lots surrounding the subject property and the denial of the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship, seconded by Commissioner Pack and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Hebar°d, Campos, Vierhus, Samuelson, Pack, Dickson NOES: Corr~~issioners: None ABSENT: Con~niissioners: Commissioner Lubeckis UP 76-19 This is the time and place for continued public hearing Leland, i:aren R. to consider the application of Dr. Karen R. Leland, D.V.M.,.for a 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. Mr. Kee reported that the applicant has submitted a letter withdrawing the application. Staff reconunends denial without prejudice, whici~ Mould remove the item fi rorir ti?e agenda. The letter from the applicant is included in the staff report. Commissioner Hebard moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Corr:nissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 1572 Commissioner Hebard moved that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 1572 denying without prejudice the application of DP. Karen R. Leland, UP 76-19, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson acid adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cornnrissioners: Hebard, Campos, Vierhus, Samuelson, Pack, Dickson NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Commissioner Lubeckis _ 7 .. UP 76-20 This is the time and place for continued public hearing Lewin, Linda C. to consider the application of Linda Carol Lewin and Allen, Linda G. Linda Seth Allen for approval of a use permit to allow a day care center in existing structures located on property known as 995 Apricot Avenue in a C-2.-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Chairman Dickson reported that the Architectural Review Committee met with the applicant ar,d reconvnends continuance to the next regular meeting. The applicant is in the process of preparing plans to submit to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Samuelson stated that the property owner is in agreement with the continuance and they will have rrrore information and plans at the next meeting. Commissioner Pack moved that UP 76-20 be continued to the Janraary 18 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Vierhus and unanimously adopted. UP 76-21 This is the time and place for continued public hearing Rivera, Tom to consider the application of Mr. Tom Rivera and CET a-f the Central Coast Counties for a use permit to allow an educational institution on property known 875 South San Tomas Aquino Road in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. Chairman Dicksorr asked hir. Yee for his comments. Mr. Kee advised that the staff had received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance to the first meeting in February. Chairman Dickson asked if there was anyone in t}ie audience wishing to speak on the matter. There being no one kisYring ttr be heard, Commissioner Hebard moved that UP 76-21 be continued to the February 1, 1977 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Campos and unanimously adopted. PD 76-19 This 'is the t:inre and place for public hearing to conside r Rempel, Mary-Lyle ti3e application of h9ary-Ly1e Rempel, and West Valley Open West Valley Open Doors, for, approval of plans, elevations, and development Doors sc#3edule to allow construction of a fourteen unit apart-- rnent z:onrpl ex to be located on property known as 573 West L.atinior Avg=~~~ue in a Planned Development (High Density Residential) Zoning District. Chairman Dickson asked h;r. Kee for his continents. Mr. Kee advised that. the applicant is requesting approval to construct a fourteen unit apartment complex. "fhe development will consist of two, two-story apartment buildings, a one-story laundry arrd community room and two carport/bikeport structures. There was a previous application before the Commission for this property in the PD Zone which was for a combination of lotiv-income and the elderly. This application meets all the requirements of the code and the staff recommends approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. The plans are in conformance with the General Plan and the development standards for an apartment complex. -8- Commissioner tack asked if the parking ratio was discussed at the Architectural Review Committe meeting. Mr. free advised that the parking does meet the requirements of 12 spaces per unit. In terms of the number of bedrooms, the staff came to the conclusion that possibly there would not be a need for the 12 spaces per unit. There are six one-bedroom units, four two-bedroom units and four three-bedroom units. Chairman Dickson declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the application. Mr. tlyron Alexander, 249 California Street, spoke for t:he proponents. He stated that the plans indicate 71% of the net lot area for landscaping and possi~ly some of this area could be utilized for parking. 71% for open space is a vary high ratio. Mr•. Kee advised that there is more room for parking, however, it would remove some landscaping. If there is a parking problem a condition could be applied that would require the installation of more parking spaces on the site. Mr. Alexander stated that it was his personal opinion that lZ spaces per unit ~vould be sufficient. He added that the purpose of the 4Jest Valley Open Doors has not changed and they intend to have mixed age groups and mixed income residents. Commissioner fie bard asked Mr. Alexander if more parking could be outlined in the landscape area if the parking became a problem. Mr. Alexander advised that Mr. William fledley, the architect, was present and he could answer any questions pertaining to the plans. M~•. fiebard stated the concern has been expressed that the 21 parking spaces are very minimal for a fourteen unit complex and there is the possibility that additional parking spaces could be outlined in the landscape area. Mr. Hedley stated that there is area that could be converted to parking if it is required. This proposal is identical to the one previously before the Commission and does meet the parking requirements. Six of the units are one bedroom units and, it was his experience, that orre bedroom units do not require 12 spaces. Commissioner Hebard stated that the last time the Commission considered this proposal, it t~ras for senior citizens and there was concern expressed from the neighborhood about the parking because there is no off-site parking available. He asked that additional parking be designated on the plan. Mr. Hedley stated that they could incorporate some additional parking in some area and if this provision is incorporated in all applications he would be agreeable. Mr. Kee reviewed the ratio of parking. required per bedrooms and stated that, in staff's opinion, the 1.2 spaces per unit would be sufficient. - 9 - Chairman Dickson asked if anyone else wished to be heard. There being no one wishing to be heard, Commissioner Campos moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Hebard and unanimously adopted. Commissioner Flebard stated that, in his opinion, this project could develop a parking problem and he did not think that he was being unreasonable in suggesting that additional parking be allowed for if needed. Commissioner Pack concurred with Commissioner Hebard, and especially in view of the fact twat there is no off-street parking available. She was of the opinion that the plans should be marked to reflect additional parking if needed. RESOLUTION N0. 1573 Commissioner Hebard moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1573 recommending that the City Council approve PD 76-19 subject to the conditions recommended by staff and with the added condition that additional parking be designated on the plans for future use, if necessary, and that this additional parking be approved by the Planning Director. Motion seconded by Commissioner Pac{:. Chairman Dickson asked Mr. Alexander if the applicant could live with that motion. Mr. Alexander stated that they could. Commissioner Pack asked that condition No. 7 be corrected to delete the word "licensed"„ Acorastical engineers are not licensed. Motion adcipted by the following roll call vote: AYES: ~;omrr,issioners: Hebard, Campos, Vierhus, Samuelson, Pack, Dickson NOES: Corr~rrissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Commissioner Lubeckis UP 76-2~1 Tf~is is the time and place for public hearing to consider 4dard, S. the application of Mr. Stephen A. Ward, III, and Sea Lord, Sea Lord Corporation, for (conceptual) approval of plans, elevations, Corporation and development schedule to allow construction of a restau- rant building on property known as 488 West Hamilton Avenue in a P-D (Planne d Development/Commercial) Zoning District. Chairman Dicfa on asked Mr. Kee for his comments. Mr. Kee advised that the staff recommends a continuance to the January 18 meeting. The staff 'is of the opinion tf~at the proposed use is acceptable, however, additional information is needed ~t;o evaluate the site design. Tf~is i~as been discussed with the applicant and the property owner has requested the continuance. - 10 - Chairman Dickson declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone ~~rished to speak far or against the application. Mr. Bykowski, 310 West }-lamilton, stated that he would like to see the plans. Mr. Kee stated that the plans as submitted are to be revised and htr. Powell reviewed the existing plans with Mr. Bykowski. Commissioner Hebard moved that the hearing on PD 76-20 be continued to the January 18 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. Chairman Dickson declared a recess at 8:45 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9 p.m. G.P. 76-2-C This is the time and place for continued public hearing West Valley to consider the future land use of the West Valley College Site College Site. Chairman Dickson asked Mr. Kee for his comments. Mr. Kee stated that this item has been on the Planning Commission agenda for almost one year,. The staff has prr~pared some exhibits to present to the Commission and the staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission consider several alternative land uses for the West Valley College Site and make its recommendation to the City Council, and if the Planning Commission recommends an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, that a recommendation for P-D (Planned Development) zoning for the site be forwarded to the City Council. Mr. Kee advised~ that he had talked to Dr. Salsbury of the Campbell Union Elemen- tary Sc}~oo7 District and had discussed possible alternatives. Mr. Kee asked Mr. Stafford to pr°e sent the exhibits to the Commission and explain the alter- natives. Mr. Stafford presented five exhibits indicating five alternatives. The General Plan for the subject area now indicates Public Facilities, Semi-Public Facilities. This is one alternative that could be considered if the property does remain in public hands. The second exhibit indicates the entire site for commercial land use. In staff's opinion, the use of the entire site for commercial can be justified. In 1968, the MERI Report supported a "special commercial" use for the site. The 1971 Land Use Element showed the site as commercial. In addition, several of the P-D areas on Hamilton Avenue, which were planned for commercial land use, have developed with residential uses. Mr. Kee advised that the Assessor's Maps show the entire twelve acre site as one parcel, and if a portion of the property is sold there would have to be a subdivi- sion map filed for the property. The administrative offices for the school district will remain. In his conversation with Dr. Salsbury that afternoon, Dr. Salsbury was of the opinion that this would be an appropriate approach to the problem. The combination commercial arrd/or residential would give flexibility in the design to a developer. The Corru~rission could also consider a ne~•r category on the General Plan and he cited the h1obile Home Park along the Los Gatos Creek as an example, where the area is shown on tf~e General Plan as industrial as well as mobile home park. The Conrrnission could show two land uses on the General Plan that might be workable for this twelve acres without drawing lines and dividing it. This would provide flexibility of site design. - 11 - Commissioner Vierhus asked what would happen if it remained Public Facilities. Mr. f;ee advised that it would then remain in public use. However, schools can to into any kind of land use shoti•;n on the General Plan. Conunissioner Nebard asked Mr. Y.ee, as a result of his conversation with Dr. Salsbury, if there rras an indication that they were anxious to dispose of the property or if tf~ey might consider it over a long period of time. Mr. Kee stated that Dr. Salsbury indicated to him that within the next month or so they would be coining to a conclusion of having bids for the sale of the property. However, there is no definite time schedule. Mr. Kee stated that from the staff's point of vietiv, it would seem very impor- tant to have Borne indication from the Planning Commission and City Council as to what kir•~d of land use would be acceptable. This would be important when it goes out to t~~id. Mr. Nebard stated that the doa~nto~w~ area is just starting tp take shape and it might be worthrvh~ile to take a holding action on this piece of property. Mr. Kee advised that the property has been declared surplus by the school district and it. has bti:en offered to public agencies for sale. The next step would be to offer it to a private developer and they are quite concerned about what tfibe City policy .kill be. There are ves~y few people interested in buying property if they don't know what they can d,a ,ath it. TFrat is the purpose of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. It is t}re policy statement of the City. Commi ssi~rr~er EE,eb:.,r~d sta f;ed that they do not have a map of the property that has beer3 ~dt~:.iared surplus and 11e questioned the location of the loop street. Mr. Kee sw,:atE~d thrat tfite only parcel that is in existence is the parcel shown on the r>r:~;p whir,.~~ arr,c~ur~ts to 12,27 acres. ffe stated that he did not have any i~informati~rt fd•~~E tyre school district. as to what is for sale out of that parcel. There has `rueerr na subdivision of tf-re 12.27 acre parcel and until there i s one, they carr~r,:t. sell jus`r a portion of the pr°operty. Commi ss i ore+' re~,are4 stated that i f they continue to occupy the offices, i t wi 11 remain Pa_~elc Facilities (Pf`~. Mr. Kee st•atr,::i ~~:hat ts~ere woP.ald have to be a subdivision map to divide the property, ~~~ .hey irater~u to keep the administrative offices on Third Street. However, tre stated tf~at there i s rro problem of having offices i n a commerci al zoning district. At this point, Chairrr,.:tn Dirrkson asked for a show of hands as to how many people in the dUdienCl? were ~•aaiting to speak on the next item on the agenda. The majority oi~ the audience was waiting to speak on T.S. 76-8. Commissioner Nebard moved that G.P. 76-2-C be continued until after discussion on T.S. 76-8, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. - 12 - P~ISCELLANFOUS T.S. 76-8 Tentative subdivision rnap of the Lands of Locurto. Lands of Locurto A.P.N. 405-10-47 Chairman Dickson asked Mr. Kee for his con~rnents. Mr. Kee stated that the staff recommends approval of the subdivision map subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 2.89 acres of land into fourteen single family lots. The present zoning is R-1 and the area is indicated for low-density residential on the General Plan (less than six units per acre). The subdivision of the parcel tivould result in a density of 4.84 units per acre. The Campbell P1unicipal Code requires an average lot width of 60'-0". The applicant is re- questing an exception to allow creation of lots witf~ an average width of 50'-0". The average lot area is greater than 6,800 square feet with no lots being less than 6,000 square feet. Mr. Kee presented a map shotiving the lot patterns within the area and also the subject parcel. Commissioner Pack stated that the average width being requested is 50 feet rather than 60 feet and asked if it would require a variance. Mr. Kee r°eplied that it would not-it vrould require a conditional exception to the subdivision ordinance. Chairman Dickson asked if the applicant wished to speak. Mr. Bill Heiss, Civil Engineer, 925 Regent Street, San Jose, stated that they have been working cn the project for over a year and he presented a map showir~ the property and the surrounding areas in the County which have been subdivided. He presented the map showing the proposed subdivision ar~d stated that in no case would a lot have an area of less than 6,000 square feet.. The plan ,as suit- miffed would involve a through street. He stated that he had met tivith two adjoining property owners that afternoon, Mr. Romero and Mr. Greenway, and they had a list of concerns of file neighbors who are objecting to the through street and he was asked by them to consider some other possibility. Mr. Heiss presented a map showing other alternatives for the subdivision of the property. He stated that they had worked with the staff and did not realize until today that there was resistance in the commu~ni;ty to the proposed subdivision. Commissioner Hebard asked if the staff had had time to study the alternatives to see if they are acceptable. Mr. Heiss stated that he just presented these alternatives to the staff anal ~:~.~~y have not had a chance to review them. He stated the alternatives had also bin presented to Mr°. Romero. Commissioner Samuelson stated he would like to hear from the audience. Chairman Dickson asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the proposed subdivision. ,~ Mrs. Lois Rose, 1095 Hazelwood Avenue, asked that the Commission review the alternatives presented and not put the street through. She cited the addi- tional traffic that would be on Hazelwood. Mr. Richard Welter, attorney representing Mr. anc} Mrs. Al Romero, stated that he does not represent any. other property owner along Hazelwood but he did have two petitions signed b.y residents of Hazelwood, Craig and Louise Court area objecting to the proposed subdivision and he presented them for the record. (Petitions on file in the Planning Department.) He stated that his clients object to the through street. Mr. 4darren Greenvray, 1000 Hazelwood, stated that he liked the idea of the R-1 development but he did object to the introduction of additional vehicular traffic in the area and he did not want to see the street cut through. Commissioner Hebard moved that T.S. 76-8 be continued. Mr. Dick Landrum, 67Ei Louise Court, stated that he would like to have the people wha signed the petitions notified vrhen this would again be considered by tt~~e Con~nrission. Chairman Dicksan asked Mr. Reiss if a two week continuance would be sufficient time. Mr. Heirs responded that it would. Cornmissior7er i€ebard moved that T.S. 76-8 be continued to the January 18 meeting, seconded by Cornrrrissioner 5amuelsan and unanimously adopted. PllCLIC HEARINGS G.P. 1fi--2-C Chairrr;an Dickson slated that discussion on the West Valley ~, Went ~'aliey (:.college College Site would continue. Site ~Corrurrssioner ~;arnpos stated that he Bras in agreement with Mr. Kee and that they should start adtntifying the land use for the property in view of the fact that it will go or~t to bid shortly. This will give some direction as to how best this proper°~ty carp be utilized and he was of the opinion that the Commission should reach a conclusion at this meeting. Mr. Kee stated th€it if the approach outlined by him previously showing a com- birlatior3 0-~ land uses seerr:s like the right direction, the staff could be prepared to come back; to the Commission at the next meeting with the alternative for the Conrntissian°s consideratiorj; it would be Exhibit H as presented tonight. Corrnnissiorier 1lierl~us asked how many coriibinations could be shown. Mr. Kee stated that they are attempting to put something on the General Plan that would provide flexibility for the cieveloprrrent of the property. Commissianer Vierhus asked how the PD zoning would affect the property. Mr. Kee stated that staff is suggesting a PD zoning to be consistent with the downtown area. The General Plan could show a combination category of conrnrercial and/or~ residential land use for the site. Specific zoning would be indicated but not a specific plan for the area. That would be up to the individual developer. The land use would give some flexibility for development. Mr. Kee stated that the staff could come back to the Conunission with a specific exhibit. Staff would like an indication from the Commission that: 1. in the Commission's opinion this approach ~rould seem to he appropriate, and 2. direction ~o the staf~F~ to drai~t a proposal and bring it back to the Commission at the next rneet~ing. After some further discussion, Commissioner Pack moved that G.P. 76-2-C be continued to the January 18 meeting so the staff can come back with a proposal fora combination land use of commercial and/or residential and show the Commission a map exactly as to what the school district proposes to put up for sale and if any remaining land is to remain for PF and i:he section of land to be taken out for the North Loop Street. Cornrnissioner Samuelson seconded the motion and it was unanimously adopted. At this point, Mr. Holly Vollenweider, realtor, stated that it is important to establish a land use and zoning on the property. This is most important before the land is put up for sale so the developer will know what he can put on it. MISCELLANEOUS S.A. 76-84 Referral of the application of Martin's Furniture Store Martin's Furniture for one~6' x 12' sign and one 2' x 8' sign on property located at 2175 South bJinchester boulevard in a C-3-S Zoning District. Chairnan Dickson asked Mr. Kee for his comments. h1r. Kee stated that this request was before the Planning Commission at the last meeting. The application was referred back to the Site and Architectural Review Conxrrittee for consideration. He presented a sketch of a sign that was pre- sented f;,y t}-re applicant at the corrnniteee meeting. The new sign is 30 feet in height, ~rher~eas the existing sign is approximately 45 feet in height. Mr. Kee stated that at the last meeting there was discussion as to the possi- bility of a temporary sign being approved until a permanent sign could be con- structed and this was to be discussed by the committee. It is-being referred back to the full Commission. Cornn~issioner Samuelson stated that there is a technical question that he would like answered. What is the definition of a new sign as a result of cl~angirig an existing sign? Is the Commission talking about a new sign or slig}rt re- vision to the existing sign? The three year amortizatior7 of the sign was discussed by the committee, however, the committee does not have a recommendation and is referr°ing the application to the full Commission. Chair~rnan Dic};son also asked the City Attorney if changing the fascia constitutes a nets sign. City Attorney Dempster advised the Commission that they should handle this in the same manner as past applications. What has the policy been in the past? Chairman Dickson cited an example where the fascia was changed and it was treated as a new sign. City Attorney Dempster stated that. at the last meeting the Commission asked the applicant to come back with a plan showing how he was going to change the sign and to bring an amortization agreement to work out with the committee as to how fast the sign could be amortized and also to determine if fie could have the old sign during t}~e amortization of t}~e sign. - 15 - Commissioner Dickson stated that the applicant had agreed to amortize the sign in three years and he asked if the Commission would be consistent if they con- sider a temporary sign for three years based on past actions of the Commission on other applications. Tfre City Attorney asked again what the general policy of the City has. been. Mr. Kee advised that the general policy of the City has been that a change in the fascia constitutes a new sign. The amortization section of the ordinance does state that if it is non-conforming, arhich this one would be, that it should be removed within three years unless an extension is granted. Mr. Dempster advised that would mean that the existing non-conforming sign could continue fora period of time. Fle advised that if the Commission feels that the policy of the City prohibits the use of the amortization section, that is up to the Commission to say. How- ever, he was saying that the ordinance provides for amortization and this appli- cation would fall within the amortization section of the code. In this case, the applicant is asking for amortization and it is up to the Commission if they want to give it to hire. The only reason that section is in the ordinance is to take care of the people who have built signs prior to the adoption of the ordinance. Commissioner Vierhus asked if it was a new sign or non-conforming sign. Mr. Kee stated the past policy of the City has been that when the fascia is changed, it constitutes a new sign. Comm~issior~er pack stated that if it is a new sign, then the amortization section cannot be considered. Mr. Dempster stated that they are attempting to eliminate the ordinace and not <•apply it by saying "because he wants to change the fascia it is a new sign, therefore, the ordinance does not apply". What is the reason for the ordinance? Mr. Kee stated tae ~vdsu~}d inter°pret the change in the sign from "Bicycle" to "Martin's F~ur:raiture`" as a neat sign t°equiring a permit. In his opinion it is a new sign. `I he ordinance provides for the amortization of a non-conforming sign.. Commissioner Hebard stated that although the applicant shows a amortization schedule of ~3 years, he is proposing to replace the sign in three years. He i s sho;,ring trio Conrrni ssi on what he i ntends to do i n three years from now and he stated that hf~ would Prave difficulty in approving something that would take effect three years from now. He might not want that sign in three years. At this point, he stated that he avould be grilling to take the approach of calling it a ten,pcrary sign and give him three years and in three years the Commission could look at -•rhat is taking place at that time. Mr. Ralph Doetsch, applicant, stated that he would be happy to go along with a three year amortization period on a temporary sign. Ne advised that he has asked Mr. Otsen of Otsen Signs to come up with a sign taking off three modules and lowering the pole to 30 feet. He has asked hirn to give him a figure as to the cost of the new sign and it is possible that he could put it up before the 3 years are up. lie stated i;hat he would have no objection to reducing the heigi~t to 30 feet. - 16- Commissioner Hebard asked what the Sign Review Committee's recommendations were as far as this sign is concerned. Chairman DicG:son stated that: it falls within the past policy of the Commission. h1r. Kee stated that the motion specifically at the last rneef;irrg was that the application go to the Site Approval Committee. Commissioner Hebard stated that the Sign Advisor to the Sign Review Comrn-ittee should review the sign. Commissioner Samuelson stated that the instructions were to refer it back to the Site and Architectural Review Committee. Mr. Kee stated that his new sign was brought in at the committee meeting and in terms of timing, staff could not get comments back from the Sign Advisor. After some discussion, Commissioner Vierhus moved for approval of the temporary sign as requested and with the understanding that a ne-v conforming sign will be erected in three years. Commissioner Hebard as4:ed how the new sign compared -Nith the other signs that have been approved in the last three years in that neighborhood as to size, height, etc. Mr. Kee advised that the first time he saw the nevr sign was this morning at the Site Revie-v Committee meeting and {~e could not answer that question at this time. Commissioner Pack stated that this is a brand new proposal and she was of the opinion that it should go back to the Sign Review Committee for a recommendation. Mr. Doetsch stated that his tenant has been -~~ithout a sign since Oci:ober and he stated that at this point he did not know if he should challenge the ordinance or not. ,,Commissioner Campos asked Mr. Doetsch if two weeks would be agreeable. Mr. Doetscf~ stated that the tenant started with the sign application in October and has been without a sign. Commissioner fiebard asked when tf-e application was first made. Mr. Kee advised that the application is dated November 2~4 and it started through the sign review process. Mr. Doetsch asked ti~at the Commission approve the temporary sign for three years and he will bring this new sign back to the Sign Review Committee. Commissioner Vierhus' motion seconded by Commissioner tiebard. Chairman Dickson asked t{re applicant if he was in favor of the motion. Mr. Doetsctr stated that he was. Motion adopted unanimously. - 17 - Chairman Dickson announced that the members of the Architectural Review Committee ti~fould serve at the next meeting of the committee. Commissioner }lebard moved that ~•i:C~r,1s 13, 14 anu 15 on the agenda be continued to the January 18 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. AUJOURPJMENT Commissioner Vierhus moved that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Commissioner Hebard and unanimously adopted. The rrieet~ing was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. t e ,;. APPROVED: ,~'",~~`''~.~ :,f -~-~°- <~~~,, . DuWayne D ckson, Chairman ,7 ,,~ ~'`if „ ~~ ,.''~~ x' ,.,` •' i At°tt r A. K e, S cretary~ l , i ~f;' 9 RECORDED.t ~.~~ ~' ~f ~.,c'-~-~~ P~~y~ is Acker, Recorder - 18 -