Loading...
PC Min 07/15/1976PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPEELL, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES JULY 15, 1976 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session, at the regular meeting place, the Council-Chambers of the City Hall, 75 North Central .Avenue, Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Stewart, Present Dickson, Samuelson, Pack, Chairman Lubeckis; Secretary Arthur A. Kee; Senior Planner . Bruce Powell; City Attorney J. Robert Dempster, Acting Public Works Director Bill Helms; Recorder Phyllis Acker Absent iiane MIiJUTES Commissioner Pact, corrected the minutes of July 1, Page 18, last and second to last paragraphs to read: "Mr. Sims further commented that the Architectural Advisor stated ...".and Page 20, last paragraph, the vote was 4-2-1, with Chairman Lubeckis --- also voting "110". i~iotion seconded by. Commissioner Dickson to approve the minutes of July 1, 1976 as corrected, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimoulsy adopted. COMMUNICATI~NSY Mr. Kee reported that the communications ' received relate to specific items on the .agenda. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS "S" 71-50 Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Swanholt, Dale. K. Review Committee recommends approval of the appli- cation of Dale K. Swanholt to modify the on-site circulation for an existing apartment develop- ment located on property known as 100 and 130 Union Avenue in an R-3-S (High Density Multiple Family Residential) Zoning District as recom- mended by staff: 1. Approval of the west fence subject to Public Works. 2. Denial of the east fence. -Commissioner Pack reported that the purpose of the modification is to stop through traffic through the development. s Mr. Kee presented an aerial photograph of the project. He advised that at the present time the fences have been erected and if the Commission should render a decision, then staff could move ahead with the abatement of the one fence and work with the other modi- fication. Right now there are two fences across the driveways and the Fire Department has indicated that there is a problem. Commissioner Pack moved that "S" 71-50 be approved as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Dickson. Commissioner Hebard asked if the Public Works Department would have any conditions. Mr. Helms advised only that the applicant would have to modify the driveway approaches. This has not been discussed with the applicant. Motion adopted by unanimous vote. "S" 76-19 Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Nelson, O.H. Review Committee recommends approval of the application of Oliver H. Nelson for approval of plans to construct an industrial building on property known as 544 McGlincey Lane in a M-1-S (Light Industrial) Zoning District subject to the conditions recommended by staff . The committee met with Mr. Rotondo, architect, and he indicated that the applicant .was in agreement with all the conditions. Commissioner Hebard moved that "S" 76 19 be approved subject to the following conditions: Ah, '~e 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 sub- mitted for approval of the Planning Director at time of appli- cation for building permit. 3. Landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. 4. 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. S. Applicant to sign agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney that the 5,100 square feet of the building., will be used for warehou: e l~urpose~ only . ,, 6. 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 Ordiances 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 park- ' ing spaces to be provied with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. B. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. , C. Plans submitted to the Building Department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities including water, sewer,.electric, tele- phone 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 Build- ing 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 Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing and construction establish- m.ent s . F. Trash container(s) of .a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the Fire Department. Unless otherwise noted, enclosure(s) shall consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall or fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level. G. Applicant shall meet all State requirements for the handicapped. BUILDING DEPARTMENT H. 30" parapet wall above roof required on east elevation. Section 1709. I. Roof covering (not shown) shall be fire retardant. Section 1603(a) 3203 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT J. Driveway to be relocated a minimum of 5 feet from property line. 3 K. Provide drainage plan for review and approval of City Engineer: L. Obtain excavation permit for off-site improvements.. FIRE DEPARTMENT M. 'Provide an automatic fire extinguishing system. N, Provide "2ABC" fire extinguishers for each leased space, or .one per 75 feet of travel. 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. Motion seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARINGS ' ZC 76-14 This is the time and place for public Kelly-Gordon hearing on the application of Brian J. Company, Inc. Kelly, and the Kelly-Gordon Company, Inc. for a change of zoning from R-2-S (Multiple Family Residential) to P-D (Planned Development/Medium Density Residenital) and approval of plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow construction of thirty-three single family patio-style homes on property known as 3600 Monday Way. Chairman Lubeckis asked for the report of the Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Pack reported that the committee met with the appli- cant and recommends approval of the application subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Kee advised that the maximum density allowed in the R-3-S zoning district is 20 units per gross acre. This development is proposed for 7.3 units per gross acre. It is a patio-home con- cept development on 4.3 acres of land. Mr Kee presented the site plan for the Commission's review. Chairman Lubeckis declared the public ,hearing open and asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the application. Mr. Kelly, applicant, presented some photographs of similar developments in Phoenix and Palm Springs for the Commission's - review. The basic concept behind the development is a single family, zero lot line patio design. One dwelling unit is pulled to one property line and access to a backyard patio is provided. - 4 - Commissioner Hebard asked if this was going to be a subdivision and I~sr. Kee advised that one of the conditions of approval would require that the developer file a parcel map. --, Commissioner~Hebard moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner .Dickson and unanimously adopted. ' Commissioner Campos stated that the Architectural Advisor had indi- cated that his main concern with this project is that some of the rooms are very close to and look out onto adjacent "blank" walls and he asked if this had been resolved. Mr. Kee advised that there was a correction discussed at the committee meeting and the Architectural Advisor's concerns were .satisfied. Commissioner Pack asked for a clarification of condition H. Mr. Kee advised that this would be referred to the Public Works office and if there is a major change to the site plan, the plans would be referred back to the Commission. Staff, however, did not see a problem with that condition. RESOLUTION N0. 1522 Commissioner Hebard moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1522 recommending that the City Council approve the change of zoning from R..2-S to P-D and the plans, elevations and development schedule to allcw construction of thirty- three single family patio-style homes on property known as 3600 24ona Way, seconded by Commissioner Pack and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Stewart, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack, Lubeckis -NOES: -Commissioners: None ..ABSENT: Commissioners: None PD 76-3 This is the time and place for continued Sims, Alan public hearing on the application of Alan Sims to convert a residential building into a restaurant and to expand the _ existing building which is located on property known as 866 East Campbell Avenue in a P-D (Planned Development/ Commercial ) 7oninl; District . Chairman Lubeckis asked for comments from the Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Fack reported that the Architectural Review Committee '~ looked at the plans as new construction and the Architectural Advisor reviewed the plans as new construction. The Architectural Review Committee felt that the plans as submitted would be saris- ' - 5 - factory for architectural review if it were for However, it is for a conversion and conversions buildings to commercial uses are not allowed in unless it can be demonstrated that the propooed result in a more desirable physical environment than would be possible under another permissibl fication. new construction. of residential the PD zone development will and use of land e zoning classi- Commissioner Dickson stated that the committee tried to look at the plans as if they were for new construction and they looked at it in terms of landscaping, parking and circulation. The fact that the circulation does empty onto a residential area is a concern as it is the policy of the City not to permit that situation. He stated that he would have further comments when the Commission concluded consideration of the plans as new construction. Chairman Lubeckis asked the staff for comments. Mr. Kee stated that staff has reviewed the plans as submitted as new construction, however, there is nothing in the plans to indi- cate new construction. The staff has recommended denial of the application. unless the Commission finds that it would be a more desirable development and use of land than would be possible under another permissible zoning classification. He stated that there is no other zoning classification where this would be permitted. The P-D zoning district would be the only possibility. Commissioner Hebard stated that the Commission had requested the Architectural Review Committee to look at the plans and answer the question as to whether or not the building was attractive and not be considering the problem of whether or not a conversion can be permitted in the P-D Zone. He stated that he would like to hear a more. pointed report from the Architectural P.eview Committee as to whether they like the building or not, and to keep out the question of conversion at this time. Mr. Dempster advised the Commission to delineate the two questions-- there can be two motions. The Commission has to make the recommen- dation to the Council. Either the Commission likes the. building or it does not. They must also determine whether or not it is allowable. It either falls within the allowability of being converted or it doesn't. The Commission should delineate the two questions and send both recommendations, either for or against, to the Council. Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. Lagier, Architectural Advisor, for his comments. , Mr. Lagier advised that he reviewed the plans in terms of new construction. He stated that he would have no qualms about approv- ing an English style pub at this site. He did not think that it would be out of character with the neighborhood. The street is 6 - basically lOW rise. He stated that his concern would be that ' new construction could not duplicate as accurately the design -- of this building. He advised he would have no qualms about the style of architecture and its relationship to the neighborhood. The trouble ghat the Committee has had is justifying the egress into a residential neighborhood. This matter would be solved in planning a new building. Commissioner .Dickson stated that he did not agree with Mr. Lagier. He did not think that the English style pub fits into the neighbor- hood. There are buildings in the area with a mansard style roof treatment and the Prune Yard across the street is Spanish. Commissioner Campos stated that Mr. Lagier has said in his opinion the English style pub is not out of character with the neighbor- hood and Commissioner Dickson disagrees with that statement and he asked Mr. Lagier on what he based his opinion. Mr. Lagier advised that in the area at the present time, there are a couple of buildings with mansard roofs--a Herfy's restaurant and a service station. The street is basically residential. He was of the opinion that the building would relate to the Prune Yard, which is Spanish style architecture. The mansard style roof is French. He was not sure just what was happening to the neighbor- hood. Even the bridal shop next door to the subject property has a residential character to it. He stated that he would not like to see every building on this side of the street with mansard roofs and was of the opinion that there were other design options that could be used. Commissioner Pack stated that she could go along with the Architec- tural Advisor and the idea that an English type pub structure would be compatible and would fit in nicely. with the area. However, she stated that she had difficulty in looking at the plans in the light of new construction. If these plans were brought in as new con- struction, they would have more detail on them. Commissioner Samuelson stated that it was his opinion that the plans indicated a slight modification to the existing building. Commissioner Stewart stated that he liked the appearance of the building as it is. He thoug}it the building fits into the neigh- borhood just as well as a Herfy's. Chairman Lubeckis stated that he would have to disagree with the Architectural Advisor that the English sty~.e pub could not be duplicated. He thought that an English style pub could be dupli- cated down to the slightest detail. T}iis application on the agenda is for conversion of a residential building into a restaurant and the Commission must not deviate from the agenda. City Attorney Dempster advised fi}iat No. 1 in the staff report tells the Commission how to approach the problem. The Commission must make the decision--either it does demonstrate that the proposed development will result in a more desirable physical environment and~use of land that would be possible under another permissible 7 ., zoning classification, or it does not.. , Commissioner~Hebard stated that he had intended to make a motion to approve the plans as reviewed by the Architectural Review Com~pittee, but then the Commission must consider the matter of findings that a conversion can be permitted in the Planned Development Zoning District and he did not think that he~cduld support that part. He did not wan t. to see the use of the PD to'subvert other ordinances that have been in effect a long time. Possibly the City should look again at the ordinance that prohibits conversions of dwellings to commercial-buildings. He added that the Building Department has indicated that a conversion of a dwelling. to a commercial building is a monumental task. A converted building would have to meet all the codes. He said that the indication is that the Commission likes the plans, but the next step is to consider whether or not the conversion can be permitted. Commissioner Dickson stated that the Commission must decide whether they like the English style pub, or they don't like it. The pro- posed remodeling is for Togo's and if they approve the plans they are approving a remodeling of Togo's. The plans do not indicate any exterior treatment of the building except a note on the shingles,. Mr. Kee stated that the building code mould not speak to exterior treatment such as stucco finish or color. The Building Department teas said that the building, if converted, must meet all the elec- trical, plumbing, building and fire codes. Those codes do not speak to the appearance of the building. City Attorney Dempster stated that before the Commission encourages the applicant to make changes in "the plans, the Commission must confront the issue and that is whether or not the ,plans clearly demonstrate that the proposed development will result in a more desirable physical environment and use of land than would be possible under another permissible zoning classification. That is the issue to be decided. Commissioner ~lickson stated that the staff has. given the Commission three justifications for not recommending approval of the applica- tion. 1. Conversions of residential buildings to commercial uses are not permitted in any other zoning district and the PD section of the ordinance specifically states that plans "musf~ clearly demonstrate that the proposed development will result in a more desirable physical environment and use of land than would be possible under another permissible zoning classification." In the staff's opinion, this requirement has not been demonstrated. In addition, conversions to•commercial uses of residential buildings are specifically prohibited' in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 commercial zoning classifications. ~ - 8- ` 2. The appearance of the buildings, in the staff's opinion, is not compatible with the predominate architecture in the area nor with plans approved in the immediate area by the Planning Commission and City Council within the last 4 or 5 years. 3. The extension of time approved by the Council in September, .1975 includes the following conditions: "Applicant to provide an agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney, prior to the expiration of the existing approval (December 27, 1975) that the use will be discontinued on or .before December 27, 1976." Commissioner Dickson briefly reviewed the past history of this property from the time the temporary use was granted to the present application. He stated that the point he is making is that this has been considered as something other than a conver- sion of a residential building and for five years it has existed as a conversion to a commercial use. The first thing that the Commission should resolve is whether or not they are going to allow the conversion of a residential building in a P-D zoning, when commercial zoning disallows the conversion of residential buildings to a commercial use. Commissioner Stewart asked Mr. Kee if the bridal shop next to this property was a new commercial construction or was it a conver- sion. Mr. Kee stated that it was a conversion. There was a finding that it was a service type use rather than a commercial use. The land use was then shown as office use on the General Plan with a PD zoning. Commercial land use is not .allowed in a P-0 area. The finding the Commission made was that it was a service oriented use in order to approve that use. Residences are allowed to be con- verted to offices in commercial zoning districts only. Commissioner Hebard stated that the Council has permitted the use of this building as a commercial building for the past five years, and the commercial use is there right now. On the other hand, the Council has adopted an ordinance which prohibits conversion of residences to commercial uses and that conflict should be resolved. He stated that possibly this is the time to reopen consideration of allowing residences to be converted to commercial uses. Commissioner Pack moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Stewart. Chairman Lubeckis stated there is a time limit until December on this use. The Commission has the staff recommendation and the past minutes and he asked for clarification of the City Attorney's suggestion as to how the Commission should act. Mr. Dempster advised the Commission to make their findings and vote on them. This could be done in two motions. Chairman Lubeckis asked if the applicant wished to be heard. g Mr.~Alan Sims, applicant, breifly reviewed the history of the subject property. He stated that he hired Mr. Barrett, planning consultant, to research the matter for him. Mr. Barrett wrote the Campbell ordinance and explained to him that at that time there was no PD zoning district in Campbell, or anywhere else. Architec- tural review committees were in their infancy. At one time there was discussion and the staff recommended that conversions be allpwed but the Council did not see fit to pass an ordinance. He was of the opinion that because of the way Campbell is developing, the loop streets, and the Factory development, that the City is going to have to face the problem of conversions in the near future. If conversions are not permitted it is very possible that much of the downtown area will have to be torn down and reconstructed. He advised that he .had submitted two pages of blue prints to indicate everything that the City would require. However, there is no provision for the repainting of the building or overhauling the landscaping. They did not think that this was the problem. They thought the concern of the City was to bring the building up to meet all the codes. He stated that the Architectural Advisor has no complaints as to the looks of the building in the area. Some Commissioners do and some don't--that is their opinion. If approval is granted, he stated that he is ready to go ahead and the building will be brought up to meet "all codes and the City will benefit. Chairman Lubeckis stated that he has not heard one Commissioner say that he objected to an English Pub. Everyone has agreed that it would be very attractive--they are not talking about looks--they are talking about the codes. Commissioner Campos asked Mr. Sims if the set of plans were submitted to the planning department. "~ Mr. Sims stated that three pages were submitted.. However, they did not go into specific detail but the plans indicate that the building will be brought "up to code. The whole set went in at the same time. Commissioner Pack stated that the second and third sheets contain the specifications for the wiring, plumbing, etc. to bring the building up to code, but the Planning Commission does not concern itself with that phase. That is left up to the building and fire departments. The only plans on the building itself is the first page. There are code modifications indicated but not to the exterior structure. Mr. Kee stated that the Municipal Code includes the zoning ordinance and these plans to not meet the zoning code. They may meet the building, fire, electrical and plumbing codes which are part of the Municipal Code, but they do not meet ttie zoning code. Motion to close public hearing adopted unanimously. Commissioner Hebard stated that he had expected to see the plans come back indicating that some work had been done on them. In a P-D zoning district fihe Commission can approve the conversion of a residence to a commercial use if they find that the plans clearly demonstrate that the proposed development will result in a more - l0 - - desirable physical environment and use of land than would be possible under another permissible zoning classification. He stated that he could not find justification in this project to - meet that criteria for permitting the conversion in the PD Zone. He thought that it would be stretching the PD in view of the attitude of the City Council regarding conversions of residential buildings to commercial uses. Possibly they could send it to the Council with the finding that they could not grant the approval of the conversion but that they would like to see a re-examination of the zoning ordinance regarding conversions of residential buildings to commercial uses. Commissioner Dickson stated that they could come to a conclusion on the first finding of the staff recommendation and follow through with the request to the City Council to consider the review of the zoning ordinance as it pertains to the conversion of residences to commercial uses. RESOLUTION N0. 1523 Commissioner Pack moved that the Commission - adopt Resolution No. 1523 recommending that the City Council deny the application of Alan Sims to convert a residential building into a restaurant -and to expan~fl the exist- ing building located at 866 East Campbell Avenue based on the findings that the plans do not clearly demonstrate that the proposed development will result in a more desirable physical environment and use of land than would be possible under another permissible zoning classification. Motion seconded by Commissioner Samuelson. Commissioner Catty os asked if they were going to make a motion on one finding. ~ ° City Attorney Dempster stated that the motion can be amended. Commissioner Hebard moved that the motion be amended to include No. 2 of the staff recommendation to find that the appearance of the buildings is not compatible with the predominate architecture in the area nor with plans approved in the immediate area by the Planning Commission and City Council within the last four or five years, seconded by Commissioner Dickson. Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners:' Dickson, Samuelson NOES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Stewart, Pack, Lubeckis ABSENT: Commissioners: None Roll call vote on Commissioner Pack's motion: AYES: Commissioners: F~ebard, Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack, Lubeckis 11 NOES: Commissioners; Stewart ABSENT: Commissioners: None Commissioner, Hebard asked if it would be in order that along with the recommendation to the City Council, that the Commission request a reconsideration of the zoning ordinance with regard to the conversion of residences to commercial uses.. Mr. Kee stated that any amendment to the zoning ordinance would come back to the Planning Commission for public hearing and then recommendation back to the City Council. Commissioner Dickson moved that the Planning Commission request the City Council to consider an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow the conversion of residences to commercial uses in the commercial zoning districts, seconded by Commissioner Hebard and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Chairman Lubeckis declared Meeting reconvened at 9:30 Hebard, Campos, Stewart, Dickson, Pack, Lubeckis Samuelson None a recess at 9:10 p.m. p.m. PD 76.-5 This is the time and place for continued Rosendale, Stuart L. public hearing to consider the application ° of Stuart L. Rosendale for approval of plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of a seven-unit apartment complex to be located on property known as 571 Marathon Drive in a P-D (Planned Development/High Density Residential) Zoning District. Chairman Lubeckis asked for the report from the Architectural Review Committee. Commissioner Pack reported that the committee reviewed this appli- cation with Mr. Rosendale and his architect. They presented revised drawings in accordance with the Architectural Advisor's comments at the last meeting. The driveways have been changed in accordance with the committee's request and the plans Look very good. The Architectural Review Committee recommends approval of the plans. Mr. Kee advised that the staff is in agreement with the recommendation of approval subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. There being no one present wishing to be heard, Commissioner Hebard moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. - 12 - RESOLUTION N0. 1524 Commissioner Samuelson moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1524 recommending that the City Council . adopt an ordinance approving the plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of a seven unit apartment complex located at 571 Marathon ' Drive in a P-D Zoning District subject to the recommended conditons, seconded by Commissioner Pack and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Stewart, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack, Lubeckis NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None UP 76-~ This is the time and place for continued Johansen, Wm. M. public hearing to consider the application Lillian L. of William M. and Lillian L. Johansen for a use permit to expand an existing day care nursery from six to ten children on property known as 356 Galado Avenue in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. Kee for his comments. Mr. Kee advised that this application was continued from the last Planning Commission meeting in order that the applicant might meet with the Building Department. The Building Department has indicated that structural changes would be required to the exterior of the house for the requested occupancy change. Chairman Lubeckis announced that this was a continued public hearing and he asked if the applicant wished to speak.. Mrs. Lillian Johansen, applicant, go to the Building Department and would have to be done and she did to them. " stated that her husband did was given papers outlining what not feel that the papers applied Commissioner Samuelson asked Mrs. Johansen to explain what they had done to the garage. Mrs. Johansen stated that they had put up a wall four feet away from the garage door and have made it into a play room for the children. Tt:e .Building Department has asked that they get a building permit for the changes and that they put up a carport. She stated that her husband had contacted the Building Department twice and they knew nothing about the application. The third time he went there he was given the papers she had shown to the Commission. - 13 - Mr. Kee stated that the parking requirements for the R-1 zone have been modified, and enclosed parking on the lot is not possible at this time and that would be a violation of the zoning code. The other changes are being asked by the Building Department because of the change of occupancy to an assembly building. Mrs. Johansen has indicated that she does not in- tend to make any structural changes. There would be major modifications necessary for a use such as the one requested. Chairman Lubeckis asked how many parking spaces are required in the R-1 Zone. Mr. Kee advised two spaces are required for a single family residence and could be provided by a carport. Mr. Kee advised that the staff has recommended denial of the requested use based on the intensity, of use of the single family structure. Commissioner Samuelson asked if it is the intensity of use or the .requirements of the Building Department. Mr. Kee stated that the recommendation is based on intensity of use and also the fact that a partition has been installed in the garage thereby eliminating the required parking and that would increase the intensity of use. Commissioner Hebard advised Mrs. Johansen that whatever problems she has with the Building Department will have to be worked out with them. The Planning Commission has no control over the Building Department. The Commission is considering the use permit which has been applied for. He asked Mrs. Johansen how long she had been taking care of ten children. Mrs, Johansen advised that she had had ten children for the last 2 1/2 years, however, there are not ten children in her home at the same time. Some are there only about an hour or hour and a half after school and until their parents pick them up. There are five children in her home 8 hours a day--the rest are school age children. She advised that she usually does not care for children in the summer as she has her own family and likes a vacation with them. Her license reads that the children must be picked up by 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Hebard stated that this house is across the street and down about 4 houses from his home and during this period he has not been aware that Mrs, Johansen was operating a business of taking care of children. City Attorney Dempster stated that the structural changes are being required by the Building Department due to the use of the building. Mr. Kee stated that was his understanding. Mr. Kee advised that the Fire Marshal was in the audience and he might like to~make some comments as the fire code would apply in this instance. - 14 - Mr. Salvatore Leonardi, Fire Marshal, advised that the County of Santa Clara does not require fire clearance for up to six children. People are allowed to have children in their homes. on a baby sitting service basis. When the number gets over six, then the State and County get involved and enforce their codes. It does not matter that all ten children are nat there all the time. This would become a "C" type occupancy which is outlined in the building code as a school type occupancy, and it must meet the building and fire codes for that type of occupancy. If the garage is going to be used for a play room for the children, this could present some problems due to the water heater being located there. Mr. Byron is concerned that there will be some structural changes required to the building in order for it to meet requirements of the code for this type of occupancy. Commissioner Hebard asked if the use permit could be granted for six children, she could be licensed by the County for ten and she could then limit the occupancy of the house to six children at any one time. Mr. Dempster advised that the County is saying that the license is for ten children regardless if the ten children are there for eight hours a day or if there are ten children and they are only there for one hour each. Ten children requires the building to meet the building and fire codes. Mr. Leonardi stated that the County counts her own children. Commissioner Dickson stated that this home is right in the middle of a residential neighborhood and he stated that he was glad that there was this protection for his residential neighborhood. Mr. Dempster stated that is not a consideration in this instance.. The consideration is given to the safety of the children in the house and not for the exterior neighborhood. The County isn't interested in the neighborhood. Commissioner Hebard stated that he would have been reluctant to think that this could be done and not disturb the neighborhood, but it has been demonstrated in this instance that it can be dons. Conditions can be imposed on the use permit at the time it is granted. He stated that he would be inclined to grant the use permit in this instance if proper conditions were attached to it, but the ~3uilding and Fire Department have conditions that must be met. ° Mr. Dempster stated that it cannot be granted because the appli- cant has said that she will not make the necessary structural changes. Mrs. Johansen stated that if she made the required changes, the building would look like a circus. - 15 - Mr. Dempster stated that the law requires that in order for her to have a permit to care for ten children she must make the changes to the exterior of the house as required by the building code. If she is telling the Commission that she will not meet the standards as required by the codes, then the Commission cannot give her a use permit for ten children. She is not required to meet the standards as requested if she only has six children. Mr. Dempster advised Mrs. Johansen that the Commission would like to accommodate her by granting the use permit, but they cannot because of the State and County laws. Commissioner Hebard advised Mrs. Johansen to get in touch with Mr.. Leonardi regarding the fire clearance. Mrs. Johansen withdrew her application for the use permit. RESOLUTION N0. 1525 Commissioner Hebard moved that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 1525 denying without prejudice UP 76-7, application of William and Lillian Johansen, seconded by Commissioner Pack and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES; Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Stewart, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack, Lubeckis NOES: Commissianers: None ABSEtdT: Commissianers: None G.P. 76-~ Continued public hearing to consider the Housing Element adoption of the Housing Element to the of the General General Plan. Plan Mr. Kee advised that staff recommends continuance to the first Planning Commission meeting in August and that the Planning Commission and Civic Improvement Commission hold a joint study session on R`hursday evening, July 22, 1976. Commissioner Hebard moved that G.P. 76-~ be continued to the first meeting in August, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted. Commissioner Hebard moved that the Planning Commission and Civic Improvement Commission hold a joint study session on Thursday, July 22, 1976, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. - 16 - MISCELLANEOUS Request from Request from Salvatore A. Leopardi, Battalion Chief Battalion Chief, Fire Prevention Bureau, Leopardi that the Planning Commission revoke Use Permit 75-1, boarding home for the aged (six ambulatory persons) on property • known as 1285 West Campbell Avenue in an R-2-S Zoning District. Mr. Kee advised that this item was brought to the attention of the Commission as a result of a memo from Battalion Chief Leopardi. He asked that Chief Leopardi comment to the Commission. Battalion Chief Leopardi gave some background information to the Commission as to the use of the subject property and also the property at 1265 West Campbell Avenue. He has requested revoca- tion of the use permit on the basis of improper staffing at the home for the aged. Mrs. Ruffenach is operating without a fire clearance from the Fire Department. She also uses the building to feed the guests from an adjacent residential care home located at 1265 West Campbell Avenue and which is now operating without a use permit. The people are crossing over the property line to eat at 1285 West Campbell Avenue. The Health and Safety Code requires that when more than six guests are cared for on a twenty-four hour basis, the building must be equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system and this has not been provided. After some discussion, City Attorney advised that what Battalion Chief Leopardi is saying is that there are twelre people being fed in one house and one home does not have a use permit. He is requesting that the use permit granted for 2285 West Campbell Avenue be revoked. He advised the Commission to make the motion setting a public hearing. RESOLUTION N0. 1526 Commissioner Hebard moved that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 1526 setting a public hearing to consider -the revocation of Use Permit 75--1 for the August 19 meeting of the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Pack and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Stewart, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack, Lubeckis NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: done Addendum No. 1 Dura Style Homes Referral from City East Hamilton Avenue Council - 17 - Mr. Kee advised that a letter was received from the City of San Jose with their comments regarding the proposed development between the time the Planning Commission considered the appli- -_ cation and the time it appeared before the Council. The City Council continued the application of Dura Style Homes in order that the Planning Commission could re-review this item giving consideration to the comments from the City of San Jose. The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission reaffirm its recommendation of approval. The City of San Jose is requesting that the sound attenuation wall, shown to be located on the property line, should be re- located 10 to 15 feet from Hamilton Avenue, and that the area between Hamilton Avenue and the wall be landscaped. San Jose also recommends that the homes be set back an additional 15 to 20 feet from the wall, which would result-in a 30 foot setback from Hamilton Avenue. These changes would require that the site be redesigned and that one unit be deleted from the project. Mr. Kee advised that it is staff's opinion that a sound attenu- ation wall would be more effective at the top of the hill. if it were moved an additional 20 feet it would be another area Campbell would be forced to maintain. The area that would be landscaped would be part of the right of way and would be,main- tained by Campbell. Commissioner Pact. advised that she had talked to Mr. Quinn, Nolte and Associates, and asked that a copy of the noise report that they developed for the project be submitted. She stated that after talking to Mr. Quinn she was of the opinion that the noise barrier wall.. is placed at the most beneficial spot it could be and she couldn't see why the City of San Jose had imposed other regulations. She stated that possibly the City of San Jose did not realize the topography of the area. Commissioner Hebard stated that he would like to go along with the City of San Jose, with the exception for the location of the fence, because it would be in Campbell. Chairman Lubeckis stated they^e is a possibility that it may not be annexed to Sa.n Jose--it may remain in Campbell. Mr. Kee stated that the Council did make some reference to it remaining in the City of Campbell. Staff is recommending that it be disannexed and go into the City of San Jose. Commissioner Dickson stated that, based on what the Commission has heard tonight, he did not think there was reason that a unit be deleted. - 18 - Commissioner Pack moved that the Planning Commission reaffirm its original recommendation of approval with the noise barrier as originally located on the original plans and the removal of the islands as agreed. Seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. Study Session Dinner Mr. Kee stated that he would try to make arrangements for the dinner ` meetir,.g the early part of September and he would be in telephone contact with the Commissions. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Dickson moved that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p,m, APPROVED: Oleg beckis, Chair ~, ;,~ ~~~ ' s /' ~. i ATTEST : ~ ~~t---.!' --'~_. Ar A. Kee, Secretary /~ ~ _ R E C O R D E D :~ /,~ N C-~ c,~/ LC---C;~` =~~1/~ .Phyllis Acker, F:ecorder - 19 -