Loading...
PC Min 06/17/1976PLA?iNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA ---- THURSDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINU`fES JUNE 17, 1976 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session, at the regular meeting place, the Couzicil Chambers of the City Hall, 75 North Central Avenue, Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Commissioners: Hebard, Stewart, Dickson, Present Samuelson, Pack, Chairman Lubeckis; Secretary Arthur.• A. Kee; Senior Planner Bruce F'cwell; Senior Planner Philip Stafford, Acting Director of Public Florks Bill Helms; Acting City Attorney Dan I9iihlfelder; Recorder Phyllis AcI<er Absent, Commissioner Campos i•iII~UTES Commissioner Pack moved that the minutes of the June 3, 1976 meeting be approved as received, seconded by Comrr~issioner Samuelsan and unanimously adopted, COPih4UIy`ICATIONS Mr. Ken reported that there were no communi- cations. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS "S" 76-8 Continued application of Elmer R. Garrison uarrisor~, Elmer R. for approval of plans to construct a 93 unit apartment complex on property known as 3495 South Bascom Avenue in a R-3-S Zoning District (High Density Residential). I~Sr. Kee reported that the staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report, Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee met with t:he applicant's representative, Mr. Shepherd, and reviet•Ted the revised plans. The applicant is in agreement with the conditions. Commissioner Dickson advised that the committee did ask for some changes in the parking and the applicant was in agreement with the requested changes. Commissioner Pack advised that condition #6 has. been deleted and the committee recommends approval subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner` Dickson moved that "S" 76-8 be approved subject to the following conditions: _ 1. Property to be fenced and landscaped as indicated and as added _ in "red" on plans. . 2. Landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. 3. Faithful performance bond in the amount of $5000 to be posted to insure landscaping, fencing and striping of parking area witY~in 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. 4. All mechanical equipment located on roofs shall be screened as approved by the P)_anning Director. 5. Building plans a.re to show location of trash enclosures. 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 i~-funicipal 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 shail indicate clearly the location of all connections for underground uti~.ities including water, sewer, electric, telephone and ~tel.evi- sion cables, etc. D. Sign application to be submitted in accordance with provis:i_ons of the sign ordinance for all signs. No sil;n to be installed until application is approved and permit issued by the Building Department. F.. Ordinance No. 7F32 oi~ the Campbell Punicipal Code stipulates that any contr. act 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. Thi,~ requirement applies to all single family dwellings, multi- ple apartment units, to all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing and construction establisl:rnents. ~', 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, e~iclosure(s) shalt consist of a concrete floor surrounded by a solid wall ar fence and have self-closing doors of a size specified by the Fire Department. All enclosures to be constructed at grade level. 2 ~. Applicant shall meet all State requirements for the handicapped. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT H. File and process a Parcel Map. T. Pay storm drainage area fee. J. Obtain excavation permit for work within Bascom Avenue right-of-way. FIRE DEPARTMENT K. Provide one street hydrant at north side of driveway at Bascom Avenue. L, Provide an on-site hydrant system connected to Bascom Avenue water main. t•4;=, Provide "2ABC" fire extinguishers. N. No parking adjacent to buildings A,B,E,F,I ~ L. The applicant is notified that he shall comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell which pertain to this develapm-ant and are not herein specified, Plation seconded b_y Commissioner Samuelson and adopted by a 5-1-1 vote, Commissioner Hebard voting "no". PUBLIC HEARTI;GS E.T.R. 76-1 This is the tirne and place for continued Garr.~isor,, Elmer R. public hearing to consider the Environmental Tmpact P.eport for "S" 75--5 , a px^oposed apart- ment complex to be Yocai:ed at 3495 South Bascom Avenue. Chairman Lubeckis asked I•Zr . Kee for his commet:ts . Mr. Kee advised that the staff recommends that the Planning Commission. include the Pdoise Study for t:he proF~osed project ( "S'' 75-£3) as part of the previously submitted Draft Environmental Tmpact P,eport and that the Planning Comrnissi.on adopt a r.eso].ution accepting the Environmental Tmpact Report. Chairman Lubeckis asked if anyone wished to be heard for. or against the E.T.R. Commissioner Samuelson moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Stewart and unanimously adopted. ` Commissioner Stewart moved that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution accepting tk~e E.I.R. for project "S" 76-f3, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson, - 3 -- Roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Stewart, Samuelson, Lubeckis NOES Commissioners: Dickson, Pack ABSENT: Commissioners: Campos ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Hebard Mr. Kee advised that according to the Rules of the Planning Commission a majority, or four votes, would be required to pass the motion. Also, there is a condition in the "S" approval requiring acceptance of the E.I.R, by the Commission. Commissioner Dic}cson stated that he voted "no" because he felt there were same comments ttze Commission wanted to make and did not have a chance to make them, fle expressed concern that the community Boise equivalent level at the site is appr~oximatel.y 59 dBA and there is nothing in the report to indicate how the project will be protected from -that noise level. Cornrnissioner Pack stated that the consultant does not state in the noise study haw he obtained the data contained in the study. }Ie does not spec}c to whether the traffic is "peak" traffic-•-he refers to daily average traffic. She stated she i-rould like to know if field measurements were taken. At the~time the E.I.R. was first considered, she raised several Y questians and they leave not been anss-rered. Commissioner Samuelson stated that this is an apartment complex development and it seeded to him that the Commission might be putting e~;cessive dF~mands on the F..I.R. If it were an industria,_ development he eauld understand the requirement of an E.I.R. Commissa.aner Lubeckis stated that the development meets the General Plan densities and the zoning ordinance and there is very little in the area that can be charged. Commissioner Pack stated. that the Commission has approved the project, but she could not in good faith accept the E.T.R, as S.t has been presented. Mr. lCee advisedthat the staff, at the meeting of May 6, recommended approval of "S" 76-8 subject to three conditions: 1. Approval of "V" 76-1 2. Acceptance of E.T.R. 76-1 3. The attached conditions lle advised •that without acceptance of the E.T.R. there is no approval of flee site plans. Chairman Lubeckis declared the public hearing, reopened. and asked if the applicant's representative wished to be heard, - ~+ Mr, Shepherd, representing the applicant, stated that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. Mr. Garrison can- not proceed without the acceptance of the E.I.R, and he asked what --, would constitute approval of the E.I.R. Mr. Kee advised that the Commission would have to accept t11e E.T.R. and find that it was in accordance with the requirements as set forth in the resolution adopted by the City Council which established guidelines for E.I.R.'s. Commissioner Pack stated that the noise factor could cause some problems for people living in the project. The project is not going to impact the surrounding area, but the people living in the project might be disturbed by the surraunding traffic noises. Mr. Shepherd advised that the development is set back quite a ways from Bascom Avenue and there is a commercial strip in the front that is proposed for development later on. The apartments are buffered. by planting strips and carports. There would be a very, small amount of traffic going through the development. Commissioner Pack asked if t}ie windows would be closed and if there would be air conditioning. Nr. Shepherd stated the windows wilh be operable but all units will be air conditioned. Cammissi.oner Fack stated tl-~a:t as long as the second flaor units ar.e air conditioned she would be satisfied. t~9r. Kee stated that the Commission did express its concern at the May 6th meeting, at which time three statements were made: 1. There was no quantitative noise data submitted. 2, If the traffic is more than 1.0,000 cars average daily traffic, then the noise will be 60 ~.P;.~.L. (Co~-~munity Noise Equivalent Level), which is above the state standard.. I.f the noise level is above state standard as established by St.:~te Title 2'5, then a noise report must be submitted. According to their E.T.R. they said that the daily average traffic is 10,000 cars now and it will reac?i 1A,000 cars in some time in the .f_uture. The road will carry a maximum of 36,000 cars. 3. If the traffic measures 36,000 Average Daily Traffic in the future, then c~rhat will- the noise impact be ~n the project in the future? _y~ Mr. Shepherd stated that the applicant did submit an acoustical report. Commissioner Pack stated that there are still some questions that were not covered in the report. Commissioner Dickson stated that he was not sure whether the E.I.R. speaks to what impact the project will have on the neighborhood, but it doesn't say what impact the neighborhood will have on the project. It doesn't say anything as to how the project is going to be protected from a noise level of approximately 60 dBA's. However, the units are to be air conditioned and he stated that P9r. Shepherd has answered his points of concern. Commissioner Pack also stated that her questions had been sat:isi=led by Mr. Shepherd. Commissioner Samuelson moved that the hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted. , RESOLUTION N0. 1515 Commissioner Dickscn moved that on the basis of the discussion held, he would recommend that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 110. 1515 accepting E.I.R. 76-1, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Stewart, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack, Chairman Lubeckis NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Campos ABSTATPI: Commissioners; Hebard ` V 76-1 This is the time and place for public hearing Garrison, Elmer R. on the application of Elrner R. Garrison for a variance from 9'-0" to 0'-0" in side vzrd setback to allow the construction o.f a tennis court fence for an apartment complex, to be located on property known as 3495 South Bascom Avenue in a R-3-S Zoning District. Chairman Lubeckis asked i~Ir. Kee foie his comments. Mr. Kee advised that this item was continued from the Ahay 6 meeting in order that a text amendment could be prepared. The applicant no longer needs the variance as the tennis courts have been relocated on the site so they are not on the property line. Staff recommends deni-al of the application. Commissioner Stewart moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted. g ~2ESOLUTION N0. 1516 Commissioner Stewart moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1516 denying without prejudice V 76-1, application of -- Elmer P,. Garrison, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Stewart, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack, Chairman Lubeckis NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Car-epos T.A.. 76-2 This is the time and place for public hearing Open Space to consider an amendment to Chapter 21.48, Chapter 21.48 Open Space, of the Campbell Municipal Code. Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. lee for his comments. Mr. Kee advised that the staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending approval of the text amendment as outlined in the staff report. The text amendment would permit the Planning Commission to consider fences in excess of six feet in height for developments such as tennis courts near property lines. The staff recommends approval. Commissioner Hebard. asY.ed if the text amendment would allow for variances to be granted. Mr. Kee advised that in order to grant a variance a hardship must be shown. This text amendment would permit the Commission to approve a fence in excess of six feet--it ~•rould give more flexibility and• authority to the Commission. Commissioner Hebard stated that possibly it gives too much authority to the Commission. A4r. Kee replied that if that is the opinion of the Commission, they should recommend denial of the text amendment. Tlie text amendment, however, was drawn up at the Commission's direction. Commissioner Pack stated there is a possibility that something may come up in the future where this text amendment could cause a problem. Mr. 1<ee-stated that the text amendment Provides that the Commission may permit fences in excess of six feet in height in the required open space areas when a determination is made that said fences will not be detrimental to the heaath, safety, pcar.e, morals, comfort or ~*eneral welfare of parsons residing or working in the neighl.~orhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the nc:igl:borhood or to the general welfare of the CiY:y. He was of the opinion that t-he onl}r way there could be a problem was if the Commission could not reach a conclusion. It could be permitted or it could be denied, but it would take action r 7 ~- by the Commission. Sf the Commission feels the text amendment gives too much authority to the Commission then they should recommend denial. _. Commissioner Stewart stated that this is the first time the question has come up and he was of the opinion that there are specific situa- tions, such as this one, where it would be warranted. This text amendment would, in effect, allow the Commission to grant a variance without the hardship clause being pertinent and he was of the opinion that there might be other things than tennis court fences that would warrant approval. He stated that he was in favor of the text amendment. Commissioner Dickson stated that the text amendment was considered because the Commission did not ttlink it was right to require a variance far a fence for that type of project. However, he stated that the Commission might be putting themselves in a position where people are going to"be requesting higher fences for other reasons. Commissioner Hebard stated that possibly tYie text amendmen~C could be worded to say, "The Planning Commission finds that it is to the bene- fit to have a fence in excess of six feet". This wording might be easier to handle. Mr. Kee suggested that the item be continued to the next meeting and staff could come back with another draft. Commissioner Hebard moved that T.S. 76-2 be continued to the July 1 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. PD 76-4 This is the time and place for public hearing Dura Style to consider the application of Dura Style Homes, Tnc. Homes, Inc. for approva)_ of plans, elevation:=, and development schedule to allow construction of ten sin~;.le family homes with a zero lot line si.cie yard setbac}: c>n proper. ty known as 7U9-765 :Cast Hamilton Avenue in a P-D Zoning District. Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee met with the applicant's representative and recommends approval subject to the recommended conditions. Mr. Kee advised that proceedings are going to be initiated to disann~x this development from Campbell to San Jose but that develaprnent will roost likely take place while it i.s still i.n Campbell due to the lengthy time that disannexation/annexation takes. Access will be through San Jose via Bascom Avenue with•an emergency vehicle access from Hamilton Avenue that will also provide pedestrian traffic to Hamilton Avenue. This application is for ten single family homes on a 2.~ acre parcel, with lots in excess of 9,000 square feet. Commissioner. Dickson stated that the committee recommends an added conditon Ii to read: Landscaping shall be provided on the Ham:il~ton --- Avenue frontage between the eight foot wall and the street rif;l~t~of- way acid is to be maintained by the City of Carnpliell. .. 8 Commissioner Hebard asked if the plans had been referred to the City of San Jose, Mr. Kee advised that they had been referred to the San Jose Planning Department but staff had not received any comments from them at this time. Commissioner Hebard was of the opinion that this part of the project should be compatible with San Jose's requirements and the other part of the development in the City of San Jose. Mr. Kee advised that our General. Plan indicates a medium density for. the area and San Jose has approved a mobile home park in the area. Commissioner Pack advised that the applicant would like to leave the street improvements in accordance with San Jose's street requirements, rather than Campbell's. Chairman Lubeckis dec]_ared the public hearing open and asked if anyone wished to be heard for or against the pr.oject.` Mr. Romer of Plolte and Associates, representing the applicant, stated that the City of San Jose has seen the plans. This is the second phase of the development--there are already 97 units built. Commissioner Pack asked A1r. Helms to comment on the street improvements I~4r. I}elrns advised that Condition H of the PD approval states that the -- applicant must file and process a subdivision and that improvements of internal streets and Hamilton Avenue will be included in comments/ requirements of. the subdivision. He stated that this subdivision is being processed in Campbell and it should conform to the City of Campbell's requirements. The landscaping along Hamilton Avenue iti~ould meet the City of„Campbell requirements. Commissioner Dickson asked Mr. Helms if the landscaping that i_s on the subdivision. map would take care of the entire Hamilton Avenue area of the project. Mr. }ielnts advised that the area that fronts onto Hamilton P>venue is under the control of the City. There is an area that is under the jurisdiction of the State of California and the Planning Department would have control over the landscaping within the subdivision. Mr. Kee expressed concern as to who would be responsible for main- taining the landscaping outside the street right of way. Mr, I}elms stated that the area hei,:ween the wall and the existing street improvements will be maint~tined by the City of Campbell. This would be a five foot strip. Commissioner }lebard asked i.f the applicant understood that the project would be deve.lopecl under Campbell's, requirements, He had requested that the streets be iriproved under San Jose's reclui.rements. Mr. Romer stated that they would accept Campbell's requirements. 9 - Commissioner Hebard moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 1517 Commissioner Pack moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1517 recommending that the City Council approve PD 76-4 subject to the conditions recommended by staff and the added condition H, seconded by Commissioner Hebard and adopted by the following roll call voter AYES; Commissioners: Hebard, Stewart, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack, Chairman. Lubeckis NOES: Commissioners: None . ABSENT: Commissioners: Campos UP 76-7 This is the time and place for continued Johansen, William I9. public hearing on the application of and Lillian L. Williar;t•9. and Lillian L. Johansen for a ' use permit to expand an existing day care nursery from six to ten children on property known as 256 Calado Avenue in a R-1 Zoning District. Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. Kee for his comments. PIr. Kee advised that the applicant is requesting to use an existing single family residence for a day care nursery with a capacity of ten children. She has operated a day care nursery with six children and in order to expand it to care for ten children a use permit is required. The applicant has partitioned off part of the garage and the. build.i.ng department indicates that no building permit was requested fore the con- version. Also, the building department indicates that structural changes would be required to the exterior of the house for the requested occupancy change. It is the staff's opinion that a day care center for ten children should be in a facility designed or remodeled far that use and not as an auxiliary use to an existing single family residence. The staff recornn,ends denial of the application. Mr.. Kee advised that the state code allows for the care of six children in the R--1 zone. They will only allow the care of ten children if a use permit is obtained from the City. Pir. Samuelson was of the opinion that ten children was quite a large number in relation to the size of the lot and facility. Chairman Lubec}:is asked if the applicant wished to be heard, or if anyone wished to speak for or ~~gainst the application. -lU - Mrs. Lillian Johansen, 256 Calado Avenue, stated that she has been lice~7sed by the state for the care of six children. She stated that the county worker suggested that she apply for the use permit for the care of ten children due to the overflo~ of children in the county requiring care. All ten children are not in her home at one time. They go to school and most of them are only there for 2 or 3 hours. Commissioner Pack asked Mrs. Johansen how her neighbors felt about the use of her home for the care of children. Mrs: Johansen stated that the children are pretty much under her control and she has never had any complaints. She keeps them occupied and she asked Commissioner Hebard if he had been bothered by them inasmuch as he was a neighbor. Commissioner Hebard stated he dial not knoar that she had the cli3_ldren j.n her home , Commissioner Hebard stated that the one thing that bothered him, about the granting of a use permit fer a nursery is that there are nursery schools in residential areas and in his opinion it then becomes a busiziess in a residence. This could bring about alterations 'to the homes and tYie addition of signs and this is something he did not want to get started in Campbell. He referred .to "circus character" type signs. Mrs. Johansen stated that she would not want such signs at her home. }4r. Kee advised that the City Council was holding an executive session ar.d he had been requested to attend. The Chairman excused Mr, Kee from the Planning Commission meeting at 8:55 p.m. tor, Powell called attention to the statement by the building depart- ment to the of-fect that some structural changes will be required to the ~tr.ucture. The building department does have the authority to rec3uire such changes under the building code'and he suggested that the matter be continued so the applicant could consult with t}ie building department. Mrs. Johansen stated that she did not intend to make structural changes. However, she stated that she would contact the building depaz~tment to see what they would require. Commissioner Steuart moved that UP 76-7 be continued to the July 1 meeting, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. MISCEI~LAPiEOUS Referral from Referral from City Council regarding a letter City Council from Dominic L. Cortese, Chairman LAF'C0, per- taming to Campbell's possible involvement in a Countywide Balance of Land Use Study. Mr. Stafford advised that the Ca.t:y Council }-gas received a request from LAI'CU to give consideration to k~articipation in a study relating to a Countywide F3alance of Land Use, Such a study would determine the net effect that potential p,rowth of individual communities has on neighbor- ing communities and on t}1e re~;ian. The City Council has referred the - ll - matter to the Planning Commission for review and comment. Staff is of the opinion that such a study, while informative, is not a priority item. The recently completed land use inventory for Campbell and its Sphere of Influence could be made available to assist LAFCO. Staff is recommending that no financial assistance be considered for this study. Commissioner Hebard questioned the staff taking this position. Mr, Stafford advised that the City of Campbell staff doesn't feel that this project is a priority item for the city at this time. The City of Campbell has the information as a result of the recent land use study. Commissioner Hebard stated that there is vacant property surrounding Campbell that could have a big impact on the city. Mr. Stafford stated that what the staff is saying is that if the County wants to go ahead t~rith the study that is fine--the City of Campbell will provide our available information to assist them. It is not a priority project in the city at this time and staff recommends that no financial assistance be provided. Commissioner Pac}c stated that the Housing Needs Assessment Study pointed out that there are not enough jobs in Campbell to sustain the people who live here or who might live here in the future. She was in agreement that the Commission should take a second look at this request before ma}cing a recommendation to the Council. Commissioner Hebard stated that he was of the opinion that the Com?nis~~.~>n _ should recommend to the City Council that they consider this and con:~ider contributing their share. The City of Campbell should bear their fair share of the burden. Commissioner Dickson stated that he agreed with some comments made, but Campbell has been sharing the burden. Campbell has done its own studies and if all the other cities were doing the same then perhaps this study wouldn't be necessary. After considerable discussion, Commissioner Pack moved that the Planning Commission respond to the City Council with a recommendation that the City of Campbell. provide available information to LAFCO for the conduct of this study and that the Commission request tide Council to seriously consider malting any other contributicns to -aid LAFCO in ma}cing the study. Motion seconded by Commissioner Hebard. Roll call vote on the motion: AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Pac}: NOES; Commissioners: Stewart, Dickson, Samuelson, Chairman Lubec)cis • ABSENT: Commissioners: Campos Motion failed. - 12 - Commissioner Dickson moved that the Planning Commission respond to the City Council recommending that the City of Campbell provide available information to LAFCO but that no commitment of staff time and money be ~ made available to LAFCO for the purpose of conducting the study, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Stewart, Dickson, Samuelson, Lubeakis HOES: Commissioners: Hebard, Pack ABSEi1T: Commissioners: Campos County Housing Authority Mr. Stafford advised the Commission that staff has written a letter to . Mr. Burns requesting his comments with regard to the West Valley Ccl].ege Site. l~ir. Burns has been on vacation and, therefore, the letter was sent requesting his comments in writing. Commissioner Hebard stated that it was his understanding that the Commission had requested a study session faith the County Housing Authority in order that the Cvrrmissian an:1 Council could get some guidelines establisl-ied. i•ir. Stafford stated that he would check with Mr. 1<ee to make sure that a study session would be arranged. ,", Chairman Lubeckis introduced the acting city attorney, P1r. Muhlfelder, to the Commission. ADJOURtdtsEllT Commissioner Hebard moved that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adcpted. Th"e meeting was adjourned at 9;35 p.m. ,~ APPROVED : _ _ _ ^~~~ ~ ' Oleg Lu ckis, Chair. man ~/ F ATTEST: ~ _ ~ ~, '-~,~ A hur A. 1<ee, Secretary J ,~ ~- RECORDED : ~~~ ~°~s%_~ f ~',~ '~',,,,-'"~.~ Phyllis Acker, Reccrder 13 •-