Loading...
PC Min 07/01/1976e PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA !~ THURSDAY, 7:30 P. M. MINUTES JULY 1, 1976 The Panning 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, Dickson, Present Pack, Chairman Lubeckis; Secretary~Arthur A. Kee; Planner I Richard Schneider; Senior Planner Philip Stafford; City Attorney J. Robert Dempster; Engineering Manager Frank Lewis; Recorder Phyllis Acker Absent Commissioner Samuelson MINUTES Commissioner Stewart moved that the June 17, 1976 minutes be approved as received, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted. COt•1.-fUN 1 CATI ONS M'r. Kee reported that a memo had been rece i ved from -S: A. Leonardi, Battalion Chief, requesting that the use permit approved fo r 12$5 West Campbell Avenue be revoked. Mr. Kee requested that the Recording Secretary read the memo. (Memo on file in Use Permit File td o. UP 75-1). Mr. Kee stated that the Commission may wish to agendize this for the next meeting in order that the Commission could have discussion on the subject. Commissioner Stewart thought that the Commission should have an opinion from the City Attorney. Mr. Kee agreed and also was of the opinion that Mr. Leonardi should be present to answer the Commission's questions. Commissioner Stewart asked if there should be a public hearing. Mr. Kee advised that the revocation of the use permit would require a public hearing. He suggested that the Commission agendize the item for the next meeting in order to determine whether they should adopt a resolution to hold a public hearing. They sFiould get the facts first. Mr. Dempster advised that the Commission cannot have discussion as to whether or not they are going to revoke the use permit without a public hearing. The Commission can determine at the next meeting whether or not they wish to hold a public hearing. Commissioner- Stewart moved that the request of-Battalion Chief Leonardi for revocation of the use permit for 1285 West Campbell Avenue be agendized for the next meeting, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and .unanimously adopted. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS "S" 76-14 Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Ralstin, Martin Review Committee recommends approval of the application of Martin Ralstin for approval of plans to construct an office building on property known as 1590 LaPradera Drive in a Professional Office Zoning District subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The Architectural Review Committee met with the applicant and he is in agreement with the conditions. Commissioner Hebard moved that "S" 76-14 be approved subject to the conditions recommended by staff. 1. Recommend that some protection be provided at building corners of auto drive-through to prevent damage. 2. Recommend that some protection be provided to prevent cars 1, 2 and 3 from backing into building. 3. Ceiling of auto drive-through should be a material compatible with the building. ° 4. No exposed plumbing from toilets over drive-through. 5. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and as added in "red" on plans. 6. 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. 7. landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. 8. 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. g. 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 Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. - 2 - 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, includ- ing 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. Qrdinance No. 7$2 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of. refuse, garbage, wet garbage -and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. F. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the fire department. Unless 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. BUILDING DEPARTMENT H. East and west wa-lls and mansard shall be minimum one hour. Table 5-A. 1. .Minimum 30" parapet wall above roof on east and west walls. Section 1709. J. Roof covering (not shown) shall be fire retardant. Section 1603 (a) 3203. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT K. Storm drainage area fee at $765 per acre. L. Obtain, excavation permit for driveway and street trees. 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 Stewart and unanimously adopted. '"S" 76-18 Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Kirkorian, Kent Committee met with the applicant and recommends approval of the application of Kent Kirkorian for approval of plans to construct an auto service center on property known as 3293 South 4linchester Boulevard in a C-H Zoning District subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The applicant is in agreement with the conditions. Commissioner He bard moved that "S" 76-18 be approved subject to the conditions recommended by staff. - 3 - • 1. Applicant shall apply and secure a variance to reduce required front yard landscaping from 10' to 5' prior to issuance of a building permit, or re- move 5' from building to allow parking to be shifted to provide for 10' landscaping in front yard. 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. Cash performance bond in the amount of $5,000 to be posted.to insure land- scaping, fencing and striping of parking area within three (3) months of completion of construction. • 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 conditons 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 20.1.6.070 of .the Campbell Municipal Code, C. Plans submitted to-the building department for plan check shall indicate clearly-tf•-e location of al] 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 Green Valley Disposal Company. -This requirement applies to all single family dwellings, multiple apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. F. Trash container(s) of a size and quantity necessary to serve the development shall be located in area(s) approved by the fire department. Unless oche noise 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. -4- ~. Applicant shall meet State requirements fo.r,the handicapped. BUILDING DEPARTMENT H. Roof covering shall be fire retardant.. Section 1603 (a), 3203. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1. File and process a parcel map, J. Pay storm drainage area fee. K. Agreement and bonding for..street improvements. L. Dedicate right-of-way (additional 4 feet). FIRE DEPARTMENT M. Provide one "2ABC" fire extinguisher for the shop and storage area and one "2ABC" fire extinguisher for the office and display area. 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 Dickson and unanimously adopted. PUBLIC HEARINGS ZC 76-3. This is the time and place for public hearing to consider Dunker, R, L. the application of R. L. Dunker to reclassify that portion of a single family neighborhood district (R-L} to a multi- ~•family zoning district'(R-2-S) on property known as 1681 Bucknall Road. Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. Kee for his comments. Mr. Kee advised that the staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council change the zoning on the subject property from R-1 to R-2-S, The applicant is requesting a zone change from R-1 to R-2-S to allow the multi- unit development which is also on the agenda as "S" 76-17. The R-2-5 zoning would be consistent with the General Plan, which indicates medium density residential development for this area.. Mr. Kee advised that R-.2 exists to the north and east and a lot in-the middle of the block is also zoned R-2. The three lots zoned R-1 are shown on the General Plan as medium density residential. Staff is recommending that the request for rezoning to R-2-S be approved to comply with the General Plan. Commissioner Hebard asked Mr, Kee what was across the street from these lots, Mr. Kee advised that it vas single family residential and in the City of San Jose, Thera is also a school just down the street. 5 - Chairman Lubeckis declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the application. Mr. Bill Hedley, architect, representing the applicant, stated that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. He advised that there is an existing single family house on the lot, which the owners will leave in its present form, confining their new development to the east and north adjacent to a similar multi-family development. ro There being no one present wishing to speak further, Commissioner Stewart moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. Commissioner Stewart stated that, at the. time this area was considered at the General Plan hearings, the people in the area expressed a desire to have it remain R-l. That is why it was left R-l with a medium density residential on the General Plan. Mr. Kee stated that comments were made at the hearings to indicate that .the area was not ready for multi-family development at that time. However, anyone could apply in the future fora rezoning. RESOLUTION NO.. 1518 .Commissioner Pack moved that the Commission adop t Resolution No. 1518 recommending that the'City Council . adopt an ordinance changing the zoning on property known as 1681_Bucknall Road to R-2-S (Multi-family zoning), seconded by. Commissioner Stewart and adopted by the • following roll call vote: A~fES: Commmissioners: Hebard, Campos ,. Stewart, Dickson, Pack, Lubeckis NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Samuelson ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS "S" 76-17 Application of R. L. Dunker for approval of plans to Dunker, R. L. construct an eight-unit apartment complex on property known as-1681 Bucknall Road in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Zoning proposed for R-2-S. Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. Kee for his comments. Mr. Kee advised that the staff has recommended approval of the eight-unit apartment complex by converting one existing structure into a single bedroom unit, converting another existing structure into a recreation building, and by constructing two new structures which will contain six single bedroom units. Condition No. 1 of the "S" approval reads: Final approval of proposed zone change from R-1 to R-2-S by the City Council. Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee met with the applicant and his representative and they are in agreement with the conditions. -6- There was a question regarding the width of the driveway that is to be resolved with the Public Works Department. Mr. Lewis reported that he had met with the applicant and Mr. Hedley and they had proposed a revision to the driveway which is acceptable to the Public Works Department. There is some landscaping that will be preserved by the reduction, in the drive- way width. Commissioner Pack reported that if the plans meet with the approval of the Public Works Department, then the Architectural Advisor approved the plans and was of the opinion that the project would be compatible with the area. The Architectural Review Committee recommends approval. Commissioner Dickson asked if Condition K would have to be modified. Mr. Kee advised that it would and should read: Driveway approach to be approved by the Department of Public Works. _ Mr. Kee presented a site map showing the layout of the existing structures and the proposed new structures and the ingress, egress and parking layout. Mr. Hedley advised that the applicant is in agreement with the conditions and the change to condition K. Commissioner Stewart moved that "S" 76-17 be approved subject to the recommended conditions and the modification to condition K, seconded by. Commissioner Hebard and unanimously adopted, 1. Final approval of proposed zone change from R-1 to R-2-S by the City Council. 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. 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. i - 7 - A. All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Section 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code. All parking spaces to be provided with appropriate concrete curbs or bumper guards. B. Underground utilities to be provided as required by Section 20.16.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code. C. Plans submitted to the building department for plan check shall indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground utilities, including water, sewer, electric, telephone and television cables, etc. D. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provisions of the sign ordinance for all signs,. No sign to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by the building department. 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, industria], 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 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 shalt meet all State requirements for the handicapped. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT H. Dedicate right=of-way (30' one-half street). 1. Agreement and bonding for street improvements. J. Pay storm drainage area fee. K. Driveway approaches to be approved by the Department of Public Works. FIRE DEPARTMENT L. Provide "2A BC" fire extinguishers. M. Trash enclosures must be located within 50 feet of the street. 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. _ g _ PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) UP 76-~7:j; This is the time and place for continued public hearing Johansen, Wm. M.• ~ on the application of William M. and Lillian L. Johansen and Lillian L. fora use permit to expand an existing day care nursery from six to ten children on property known as 356 Calado Avenue in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. ~ ~ . Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. Kee for his comments. Mr. Kee advised that this item was continued from the last meeting in order to allow the applicant additional time to meet with, the Building Department. At this time staff has no information as .to whether the applicant contacted the Building Department. Commissioner Pack asked if staff had received any communication from the Building Department regarding the application. Mr. Kee stated there is no record of a response from the Building Department. Chairman Lubeckis asked if the Commission had any suggestions. Commissioner Dickson stated that this is a continued public hearing and, inasmuch as there is no one present to speak for or against the application, he would move that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Stewart stated that he was reluctant to turn-this application down without having some indication from the applicant. Commissioner Dickson stated the item has been on the agenda three times., and continued at the request of the applicant. ~t was continued from the last . meeting so the applicant could contact the Building Department to find out what their requirements would be. _ Commissioner Hebard stated that he did not like the idea of closing something off without knowing what the situation is. Chairman Lubeckis stated that he agreed. Mr. Kee stated staff would have no objection *_o sending the applicant a registered letter, as well as a memo to the Building .Official requesting information. Commissioner Hebard move.~i that UP 76-6 be continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. Commissioner Pack stated she would like to clarify a point. The staff was to contact the Building Department and get a report from them. Mr. Kee advised the staff has a response from the Building Department in the file. The application was continued so the applicant could contact the Building Depart- ment to find out what their requirements would be. Staff will send a certified letter to the applicant advising that the application has .been continued and also advise the Building Department. that it has been continued one additional - time. -9- UP 76-8 This is the time and place for public hearing to Haigh, J. A. consider the application of J. A. Haigh on behalf Syufy Enterprises of Syufy Enterprises for a use permit for modifica- tion to an existing drive-in th eater operation and approval of plans to allow five screens in lieu of three sc reens on property known as 535 Westchester Drive in a M-1-S Zoning Distric t. Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. Kee for his comments. Mr. Kee presented a colored plan that staff prepared to better explain the application. The staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions attached to the staff report. The applicant is proposing to add two additonal screens to the Winchester Drive-In Theater and to relocate on.e of the existing screens. The overall holding capacity of the theater would not be significantly altered. The car areas for the existing screens would be reduced to facilitate the additional screening, however, the site would not be enlarged. .' There would be a reduction of approximately 50 cars capacity. Staff is of the opinion that the additional screening will not significantly affect the intensity of use of the theater operation since the additional screens do not necessitate additional land. The applicant would have to comply with all conditions of the zoning code as it applies to drive-in theaters in the M-1-S Zone. Commissioner Hebard stated that he did tour the site of the drive-in theater with Mr. Haigh. Commissioner Pack stated that she accompanied Mr. Hebard and Mr. Haigh on the tour. She advised that one screen will be relocated away from the mobile home park and that is the only neighboring residential area. It did seem to her that the screen will be at a better location. Chairman Lubeckis expressed concern about the mobile home owners adjacent to the theater. Commissioner Pack advised that it was not the screen that tends to irritate the mobile home owners--it is when the screens are dark and the patrons honk their horns. Commissioner Campos stated that when the drive-in theater was put into this area, there was opposition expressed as to ttie noise and traffic that would be generated. The staff is of the opinion that although there will be five screens in lieu of three, that there will be no significant increase in traffic and he asked Mr. Kee if staff could justify tha opinion. Mr. Kee stated that the traffic and noise from the staff's point of view would not significantly increase. Mr. Kee reviewed the history of the drive-in theater which now has three screens. The application is to increase it to five screens. Staff would not anticipate a large increase. in intensity of use. Mr. Haigh was present at the Architectural Review Committee meeting and explained to the committee how they buy the films and the reasoning behind the request for five screens. - 10 - ,y r Commissioner Campos stated what bothered him was the statement that the overall holding capacity of the theatre would not be significantly altered. Mr. Kee advised that the number of cars would be reduced by forty or fifty. The Police Chief has stated that they have not had any traffic problems that could not be handled. The access is through an industrial area--it does not go through a residential area. The only residential area would be from Campbell Avenue going south on Union. There are three areas that provids access north on Union onto McGlincey, south on Union onto McGlincey and Camden turning onto McGlincey. Either way it is through an industrial area to McGlincey Lane. Commissioner Hebard stated that at the present time the use permit granted by the City of Campbell is for one screen--the third one.. The rest of the drive-in theater is not operating under a use permit. It is operating because it was in existence when the area was annexed to the City. If this use permit is granted, then the whole project will be operating under the control of the City of Campbell use permit. . Mr. Kee stated that is correct--there has only been one use permit granted and that is for the third screen. Mr. Hebard stated that the new screen in the lower left hand corner of the property, which is right above Highway 17, is substantially smaller than any of the existing screens. . Commissioner Campos asked if any complaints had been received from the mobile home owners as to the noise and traffic. Mr. Kee advised that staff has no record in the Planning Office of any. complaints regarding the application. Commissioner Dickson asked what the total acreage of the theater was. Mr. Kee advised that there is a total of 22 acres for the drive-in theater operation. Chairman Lubeckis declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the application. Mr. J. A. Haigh, representing Syufy Enterprises, stated that he was in agreement with the conditions recommended by staff and requested that the Planning Commission approve the application. Commissioner Campos asked Mr. Haigh if it is not going to alter the capacity, why five screens rather than three? Mr. Haigh advised that times have changed. The attendance has dwindled. They are obligated to buy films that they have not seen. When they buy the films, they have to stipulate the number of weeks they will run. Sometimes they have to commit the theater to show a film for 16 to 20 weeks and they have found at times that in four weeks the attendance has dropped. Hopefully, they can move the film to a smaller screen area and they can buy another film for the larger area. They will change the location of the projection booth and have everything at one location. Chairman Lubeckis asked if there were any further questions of Mr. Haigh. _ There being none. Commissioner Hebard moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Stewart and unanimously adopted. -- RESOLUTION N0. 1519 Commissioner Stewart moved that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 1519 approving UP 76-8, application of J. A. Haigh on behalf of Syufy Enterprises, based on the finding that the additional screening will not significantly affect the intensity of use of the _ theater operation. Commissioner Dickson stated that if the ,use permit is approved, they would be approving a use permit for the entire area--including the lower half that was previously in the County. It-would modify the use permit for the third screen. The area that was in the County has never had City approval. This action would modify the whole area and it would be under Campbell use perm'st and would essentially approve the whole development for the first time. Mr. Kee stated that he was correct.. Commissioner Dickson stated that the Commission could ask for landscaping if they believe it necessary. He stated"that he was concerned about the one screen that can be -seen by the freeway traffic going south. He would like to see some trees along .that edge' of the screen--similar to the screening at the north end. Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. Haigh if he would be in agreement to increase the landscaping so there is less visibility from the freeway. Mr. Haigh advised that there are trees there now--they are pine trees: A landscape architect designed the landscaping for the project and trees we re planted in accordance with the plans. - Mr. Dickson stated that he would withdraw his concern. Motion seconded by Commissioner Hebard and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Stewart, Pack,- Lubeckis NOES: Commissioners: Dickson ABSENT: Commissioners: Samuelsan~ Chairman Lubeckis declared a recess at 8:55 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:15 p. m. - 12 - UP 76-9 Bardet, Thomas. L. Mobil Oil Company .~ ;A. This is the time and place for public hearing to consider the application of Thomas L. Bardet, on :behalf of Mobil Oil Corporation, for a use permit and approval of plans to construct a self-service gasoline station on property kriown as 1533 west Campbell Avenue in a C-1-S (Neighborhood Commercial) Zoning District. . Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. Kee for his comments. Mr. Kee advised that the staff recommends. approval subject. to the conditions outlined in the staff report. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing service station with a self-service gasoline station. Staff and the Architectural Advisor are of the opinion that the architectural design of the proposed building is good and that the overall proposal would be a compliment to the area. Commissioner Pack advised that the Architectural Review Committee met with the applicant and recommends approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The applicant is in agreement with the conditions. .The Architectural Advisor is of the opinion that the proposed design is good.. Mr. Kee stated that the applicant has requested that he be allowed to sell the items allowed in the vending machine over the counter in the station. This is not clear in the ordinance, however, the staff would see no problem. Staff would be concerned if there were outside sales. Commissioner Pack stated that "A" should~be added under condition "H" to read: In lieu of refreshment and cigarette machines over the counter sales of these items are permitted. Chairman Lubeckis declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the application. Mr. Thomas Bardet, representing ~9obi1. Oil Corporation, stated that they are in agreement with all the conditions as amended and he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. Commissioner. Hebard asked if this would be a company-owned station. Mr. Bardet replied that they lease the property. The operation initially will be a company operation. Commissioner Stewart asked Mr. Bardet if he was in agreement with Mr. Kee's statement of selling over the counter the same items found in the vending machines. Mr. Bardet stated that they requested this, They would only sell those items found in vending machines. Commissioner Hebard moved ti~at the public hearing be closed, seconded by , Commissioner Stewart and unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 1520 Commissioner Hebard moved that the Commission adopt . Resolution No. 1520 approving UP 76-9, application ' of Thomas L. Bardet on behalf of Mobil Oil Company _ 13 _ subject to the conditions as modified, seconded by Commissioner Pack and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Stewart, Dickson, Pack, Lubeckis NOES:- Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Samuelson PD 76-3 ~ This is the time and place for continued public hearing Sims, Alan to consider 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 Zoning District. Chairman Lubeckis asked for the report of the Architectpral Review Committee. Commissioner Pack advised that the applicant was not present at the Architectural Review Committee meeting. Chairman Lubeckis stated that at the last meeting it was agreed that the appli- cant would be sent a registered letter notifying him that the application was continued to this meeting and would be resolved at this time. Mr. Kee advised that the letter was sent to the applicant and he is in the audience this evening. Mr. Kee stated that he had a discussion with Mr. Nestor Barrett, representing the applicant. Mr. Barrett is a planning con- sultant and, in fact, he wrote the original General Plan of.the City of Campbell and the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Barrett has written a letter to the Commission and Mr. Kee stated he would like to clarify the statements made in Paragraphs 2 and 3, page 2 of Mr. Barrett's letter. In part it reads: "Under the Campbell Zoning Ordinance any use is allowed in a P-D Zone." Mr. Kee stated that the Planned Development section of the zoning ordinance provides for a use or development, or combination of uses or-types of developments upon approval by the Planning Commission. after findings are made. Mr. Kee referred to the staff comment sheet of May 6, in which the staff stated: "The staff cannot justify an approval recommendation based on the following: 1. Conversions of residential buildings to commercial uses are not permitted in any other zoning district and the P.D. section of the ordinance speci- fically states that plans 'must clearly. demonstrate that the proposed development will result in a more desirable physical environment and us.e of land than would be possible under another permissibile zoning classification.' In the staff's opinion this requirement has nofi been demonstrated. In addition, conversion to commercial use of residence buildings are specifically prohibited in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 commercial zoning classifications. 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. - 14 - a 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, 197b.' " The General Plan shows the area for commercial and the PD in this instance is a commercial use. Commissioner Hebard asked if the memo to the Planning Department from the Building Official had been made available to the applicant. Mr. Kee stated it was his understanding that it had. Chairman Lubeckis advised this is a continued public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the application. Ftr. Bob Ferguson, Building Designer, advised that he would be representing Mr. Sims, the owner of the building, only as far as the plans are concerned. Regard- ing the Building Department and compliance to their codes, he advised he has been over the plans with Mr. Byron, Building Official, point by point regarding the electrical, plumbing and other aspects of the building. There isn't any- thing that has been requested that Mr. Sims has not agreed to. He will bring the building up to code, if he has the approval of the Planning Department. He did not believe they would have any problem obtaining a building permit if they had the Commission's approval. The plans were also discussed with the Fire Department and when they met with the Architectural Review Committee and the Architectural Advisor, it was his impression that there wasn't any quarrel with_the plans. They are proposing a small addition, about 15i of what is existing, and it will be in keeping with the existing building design. Commissioner Hebard stated that the plans do not show if it is Mr. Sim's intention to bring the building up to present day codes, just as if it were a new building. Mr. Ferguson stated that is his- intention. Commissioner Hebard questioned some of the problems raised by the Building Department, such as floor joists to conform to codes for commercial buildings. Mr. Ferguson stated that has been checked out by a registered civil engineer and they did comply. Mr. Kee stated that he would take exception to comments made that things have been checked out with a registered civil engineer. The only information the Planning Department has is from the Building Department to the effect that they need structural information. The representation to the Commission that it is all right~is not acceptable to the Planning Staff. Mr. Ferguson stated that he does not have the structural report but he has seen it. Mr. Sims has it and it is from Mr. Rotondo. He stated that they realize that before they can get a building permit they will have to have plans that conform to the codes. _ 15 _ . 1 Commissioner Hebard stated that the code prohibits conversion of dwellings to any other use than an office, and in his opinion it is going to be diffi- cult to consider a conversion of a dwelling to a commercial use when the ordi- nance prohibits it. However, if it were considered a reconstruction with a building meeting all the requirements of a new building, the Commission might be able to take a different view of it. There.is a big difference between a conversion and a reconstruction.. He.stated that the Commission has not as yet seen plans that show where the deficiencies exist and that they will be met. In the tight of the wording of the zoning ordinance, it may not even be possible. The Building Department has said that there are a lot of problems and the applicant has said that the plans will meet the codes. Mr. Ferguson stated that Mr. Sims has gone as far as getting bids and he advised that Mr. Sims had just handed him the computations he received from a structural engineer. Mr. Ferguson read part.of the letter from the engineer. He stated that he and Mr. Sims realize that they have to meet all requirements of the building code in order to get a building permit and he asked for the Planning Commission's approval. Mr. Kee advised that the Planning Commission and the City Council must give approval. In his opinion, the plans before the Commission are the ones the Commission must find is a better development and use of land than would be possible under any other permissible zoning classification. The Planning Staff is of the opinion that these plans do not demonstrate that. These plans indicate pretty much what is existing, other than the small addition. If a residence is to be converted into an office, more detailed plans are required. That is one major concern of staff. Mr. Stewart stated that at the last meeting the Commission requested a definitive answer from the Building Department as to whether or not the plans would meet the building code requirements. Mr. Kee stated there is a memo on file. The Planning Staff sent a memo to the Building Department on June 4 and asked for their recommendation. Mr. Byron's reply, dated June 9, states that the Building Department shall require that this building, if it is to be converted, meet all the latest requirements of the Uniform Building Code. It is the opinion of the Building Department that any building can be brought up to present day codes, although this can become very extensive as modern day codes have become quite stringent since the time this permit was filed. Earthquake structural changes are required, and the cost may be prohibitve. The Building Official has stated that further analysis of the building can only be conducted by the Building Department when a=complete set of working drawings has been submitted, and calculations justifying the integral stability of the building are received. Mr. Kee stated that the only plan that staff has seen is the one that is before the Commission and that plan does not answer the Building Department requirements . Commissioner Stewart stated that specific recommendations.are given on PD - 16 - a, i applications from the different departments. He did not see how the Commission could approve a PD that does not meet the approval of the building, fire and other departments.. He stated that he would like to have the other City depart- ments involved and say that the plans do meet with their approval before he would be able to. vote. Commissioner Campos asked Mr. Ferguson if he met with Mr. Byron in response to his memo dated June 9. Mr. Ferguson stated that he had no knowledge of that memo. He met with the Building Official back in January and went over the requirements point by point. The Commission has statements from the Fire and Building Departments that the plans must comply. They must go through plan check in order to get a building permit and they know that the plans must comply. Commissioner Hebard stated that when someone is seeking architectural approval, they do not, at that point, necessarily have woricing drawings. They come in with a plan showing the elevations, parking, landscaping, etc. to see whether or not the building, as it appears, is going to receive approval from the Architectural Review Committee and- the Planning Commission and, at that point, the Planning Staff, the Architectural Advisor and the Architectural Review Committee will make the assumption that the working drawings will either meet the codes of the various departments, or the building won't be built. Commissioner Hebard stated that what the Commission is saying is that they want to see working drawings before they make a decision. This is a unique situation. Mr. Kee stated that is pretty much his understanding. The Building Department has said that any building can be brought up to code; they are saying anything is possible. Conversion of residential buildings is a difficult proposition. Commissioner Hebard stated that they could look~at it as though it were a new building on a lot and decide if this is the type of building that would be acceptable. They could make that decision and then rely on the other depart- ments to follow through. He stated that this is an unusual case and he would not feel comfortable doing that. Mr. Kee stated that almost five years ago the applicant was granted a temporary use. It is the Planning Commission's decision to recommend one way or the other. However, the Commission should also find that these plans show a more desirable physical environment and use of land than would be possible under any other permissible zoning classification. The staff will follow whatever decision the Commission makes. Mr. Kee was of the opinion that the Commission should give the applicant a decision and after five years come to a conclusion on the temporary use. Chairman Lubeckis stated the applicant has asked for continuances and they have been granted. He does not know what the applicant has in mind. He asked Mr. Ferguson if they had met with the Architectural Advisor. Mr. Ferguson stated that he lead met with him and it was his opinion that the Architectural Advisor lead no quarrel with the .plans. Mr. Kee stated that the applicant was not present at the Architectural Review Comi~i i t tee meeting. The Architectural Advisor is of the opinion that the addition is in keeping with the character of the existing restaurant which now exists on the property and does not take into account whether it is temporary, or has been in existence four years. He did not inquire as to how long it might be approved for. There is, a temporary use in existence and it must be resolved before December. Commissioner Hebard stated that he would like to have the plans referred back to the Architectural Review Committee and the Architectural Advisor to examine them from the standpoint of a normal architectural review. Commissioner Pack stated that the Architectural Review Committee has reviewed the plans, and then it was brought to the Commission. It was continued because the Commission could not find that it met the requirements of the zoning code. Commissioner Hebard stated he would like the Architectural Advisor to look at it as a whole--not as an addition to an existing use. Commissioner Dickson stated that the code prohibits conversions of residences to commercial uses in the C-l, C-2 and C-3 commercial zoning districts. That is the area of concern. He stated that the Commission has looked at the plans and he was of the opinion that they should take a vote. He stated. that he recommended against the plans at the Architectural Review Committee meeting. Commissioner Hebard asked if he disapproved of the building on that lot and the land use,. or was it because the ordinance prohibits conversions in other commercial zones. Commissioner Dickson stated that No. 1 in the staff comment sheet of May 6 was his reason for not recommending approval. City Attorney Dempster advised that the Commission must make findings. The Planning Staff has three reasons why staff cannot justify an approval recommen- dation. The Commission should take a position and go on record as to why they are making the recommendation to the Council. Chairman Lubeckis requested that the applicant come forward so the Commission might ask him their questions. Mr. Alan Sims, applicant, stated that the Building Department asked for plans and they have plans. There will be new wiring, plumbing, restrooms, roof, kitchen, etc. Mr. Ferguson has met with Mr. Byron several times and he personally has been pushing the application since January. He stated that he has talked to Mr. Byron and Mr. Byron knows the building. He has a report from a ~, structural engineer and he is of the opinion the building is structurally >~ sound and, in addition, it meets code for one-story buildings for earthquakes. ,~.~'~;~ ~ He stated that he was sure the Building Department will approve the plans. He ,,~/~~J ~'y said it would be costly but he would be willing to'pay it. ~ an~,~~" ~,p J~ The Architectural Advisor stated that he has no objection to the building at that location. Mrs. Pack stated that she had no objection to the building being remodeled to meet the codes. She could not vote for it because, according to the zoning code, it must clearly demonstrate a more desirable development. Mr. Dickson disagreed with the building plans--two out of three approved the plans. Flo stated the Fire Marshal has been there many times and made suggestions. He stated he was granted a temporary use for four years and when that ran out he asked for an extension so he could submit plans to convert the building and. that is what he is trying to do. ,~ He stated that these are not blue prints,-nor are any brought before the Commi ss, ion. He stated that he hired Mr. Barrett, planning consultant, and asked for his his report. He yeas of the opinion that the plans are acceptable at this point subject to complete and absolute satisfaction of every other department. There is no other zone in which this could be approved. The only zone where it could~be considered is the PD zone. Mr. Barrett feels that since this is in the PD zoning district, and the way the Campbell PD ordinance is written that this could be easily approved. Mr. Kee stated that basically it is Mr.-Sims' interpretation of what Mr. Barrett means in his letter. He asked Mr. Barrett when he was in his office, how he would resolve the question. He did not answer, nor did he answer the question in h'ts letter. The code states the plans must clearly demonstrate that the proposed development will result in a more desirable physical environment.• Mr. Barrett didn't address ..that. Commissioner Hebard moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Pack. and unanimously adopted. Commissioner Hebard stated, in his opinion, the Commission should consider whether they like what they see before them in that zone. If they don't like it, there is no point in going any further. If they like what they see, there is a possibility that it can come about. Commissioner Pack stated that she had no quarrel of having a restaurant in the zone and that she likes the look of the "older house". She stated that her problem was with the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Stewart stated that he would go along with Commissioner Hebard, and requested that the Commission be polled. Chairman Lubeckis stated that he could not see anything on the drawings that he particularly liked or disliked. Commissioner Dickson stated the Commission should consider ldo. 1 and then No. 2 of the staff recommendation. It was his opinion that if it is not permitted, the applicant shouldn't be requested to submit drawings. The drawings have not been adequate, but if it is not permitted, why ask the applicant to submit more. Mr. Kee stated the conversion would be possible under the PD if the Commission makes findings as to why the plans are appropriate. Mr. Dempster advised that the Commission has to decide if they are in agreement with the Planning Director's recommendation or they are not. Commissioner Dickson stated that the PD should not be used to undermine the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Stewart stated that he would like the Commission polled. The Chairman left the meeting. The City Attorney advised the Vice Chairman to poll the Commission. a Vice Chairman Dickson asked Mr. Hebard i.f he liked what he saw. Commissioner Hebard stated that he did not find it incompatible.with the surrounding land uses. If the Architectural Advisor approves of it, he would possibly find in. favor of it. ' Mr. Kee advised the Architectural Advisor has just gone on vacation but the staff, can request a written response from him. Chairman Lubeckis returned to the meeting. Chairman Lubeckis stated that, after taking into consideration the staff report and the zoning ordinance, he could not honestly give an opinion one way or the other. He stated that the plans do not do anything to him. Commissioner Campos stated that he likes the look of the building. Commissioner Stewart stated that he likes the look of the building and believes it is compatible. Commissioner Dickson stated that he did not like the looks of the building in the area that it is in. Commissioner Pack could not see where it did not fit into the area. The area has many different kinds of architecture. She stated that she liked the looks of old buildings. She stated that she already gave an opinion from the Architectural Review Committee on the plans. Her quarrel was with No. 1 of the staff write up. Commissioner Hebard stated that because of that, they might not have looked at the plans and he asked if they would like the plans back for review. Commissioner Pack stated that was not what she wanted--perhaps they should take a vote on i t. Commissioner Hebard stated that the consensus of the Commission appears to be that they like what they see, but would still like the Architectural Review Committee and Architectural Advisor to go over the plans again and come back with a recommendation to make sure it is the way they would like to see it. Commissioner Hebard moved that PD 76-3 plans be referred back to the Architectural Review Committee for examination and report back to the Commission at the next regular meeting, seconded by Commissioner Campos. Inasmuch as the hearing had been closed, Commissioner Hebard withdrew his motion and Commissioner Campos his second. Commissioner Hebard moved that the public hexing be reopened, seconded by Commissioner Stewart and unanimously adopted. Commissioner Flebard moved that PD 76-3 be continued to the next. regular meeting and that the matter be referred back to the Architectural Review Committee for an updated report, seconded by Commissioner Campos and adopted by a 5-1-1 vote, Commissioner D i ckson voting "No" . ,,~t ty,.,~~,t~~' , d~.~ 2~zx`.~,.,~' >_, 5-- ;~ 20 _ . 1~ Chairman Lubeckis asked the Planning Staff to work with the Building Department and clarify all the requirements,. and review the architectural plans so a report can be made back to the Commission showing that the plans were submitted and were _._ agreeable with the Building and fire Departments. PD 76-5 This is the time and place for public hearing on the Rosendale, Stuart L. application of Stuart L. Rosendale ror 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. Mr. Kee advised that staff recommends continuance of this item to the next meeting. The Architectural Review Committee met with-the applicant and he is to make some revisions to his plans and resubmit them. Commissioner Hebard moved that PD 76-5 be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting, seconded by Commissioner Stewart and unanimoully adopted. T.A. 76-2 Continued public hearing to consider an amendment to Open Space Chapter 21.48, Open Space, of the Campbell Municipal Chapter 21.48 Code. Mr. Kee reviewed the. revised .text amendment. The revision incorporates the positive element that the exception to fence height restrictions must result in a more desirable site layout. After some discussion as to the wording of the proposed amendment, Commissioner E S. #{1521 Hebard moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1521 recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 21.4$, Open Space, of the Campbell Municipal Code as written by staff, seconded by Commissioner Campos and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Stewart, Dickson, Pack, Lubeckis NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Samuelson G.P. 76-2-C Continued public hearing to consider the future use of West Valley ~ the West Valley College Site. . College Site Mr. Kee advised that he had received a request that this public hearing be continued to the second meeting in August, rather than the first one due to vacation schedule of one of the Commissioners that has been involved in all the discussions. Commissioner Stewart moved that G.P. 76-2-C be continued to the second meeting in August, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. - 21 - G.P. 76-4 Public hearing to consider the adoption of the Hous,jng Element ~ Housing E}ement to the General Plan. of the Genera 1 P'1 an - Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. Kee for his comments. ~ Mr. Kee stated that due to the lateness of the hour. and the short time that the Commission has had the proposed Housing Element for review, possibly the Commission would want to continue the' public hearing to the next meeting. Commissioner Dickson stated that he had reviewed the proposed element and he • would like to have in the element.a summary of conclusions and. recommendations. He was aware that they were in the element, but he stated he would like to have them summarized in one place. ' . Commissioner Hebard stated there is some urgency in making the. Commission's recommendation to the Council and he suggested that a'~study session be held for review and the Civic Improvement Commission and any others interested. should be invited to attend. ' Commissioner Pack asked i'f the goals were obtained from the Housing tyeebs "Assessment Study. -. C~1r. Kee advised that much of the information in the proposed element came out of the Housing Needs Assessment Study and are within the guidelines of the State Housing Act as it applies.to~the Housing Element. Chairman Lubeckis declared the public hearing open on G.P.. 76-4. Commissioner Hebard moved, that G. P. 76-4 be continued to the next regular meeting of the `Planning Commission and that staff arrange fora study session to .review it with the Planning Commission, to tell the Commission where staff obtained all the information, and that the members of the Civic Improvement .Commission and the Housing Subcommittee be specifically invited to .attend the study session. Motion Seconded by Commissioner Campos and unanimously adopted. ADJOURNTI_ENT Commissioner Campos moved that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Commissioner Hebard and • the meeting was adjourned at lY°° 15 p.m. ' ~. APPROVED: ~i2:~~ Oleg Lu c i~, Chairman ~' , /, ATTEST: ''~^-' Art ur A. Kee, Secretary _~y RECORDED:.. ~( ~,~~%'~ hyl ~ is Acker, Recorder . ~ j • • - ~~ • a 4 ~ Av,ti