Loading...
PC Min 12/04/1975PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA THURSDAY, 7:30 P.M. MINUTES DECEMBER 4,1975 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, Dickson, Present Samuelson, Pack, Chairman Lubeckis; Secretary Arthur A. Kee; Senior Planner Bruce R. Powell; Brian Duckworth Assistant to the City Attorney; Engineering Manager Bill Helms; Recorder Phyllis Acker Absent Commissioner Stewart MINUTES Commissioner Campos moved that the minutes of the November 20, 1975 meeting be approved as received, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Kee reported that the communications have been included with the item on the agenda to which it pertains. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS S.A. 75-88 Appeal by Mr. Vernon Burgess, on behalf Whiskey Creek of Whiskey Creek Liquors, of a decision Liquors of the Planning Director which gave con- ditional approval to a sign application for signs to be located on property known as 2075 South Winchester Boulevard in a C-3-S Zone. Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee met with the applicant, Mr. Rominger and Mr. BurgesG, and the committee recommends denial or continuance for a new letter of appeal. Mr. Kee reported that the staff recommends denial of the appeal. The applicant is appealing the decision of the Planning Director which denied a request for a sign on the north and south fascia and gave conditional approval for a sign to be located on the east fascia of a building located at 2075 South Winchester Boulevard. A copy of the letter of appeal written by the applicant's representative and a copy of the Planning Director's letter denying the application were before the Commission for review. - 1 - Commissioner Dickson reported that the Sign Review Committee, as well as the Sign Advisor reviewed this sign application, and they recommend that the front portion of the sign be approved with a reduction in the letter size to 12 inches and they also recommended denial of the two side signs. Mr. Kee advised that the applicant has existing signs, however, he is attempting to re-sign the building. Chairman Lubeckis asked if the applicant wished to be heard. Mr. Ken Rominger, 2075 South Hinchester Boulevard, stated that r his representative wrote the letter which is before the Commission and was emotionally motivated and he asked that the letter be omitted. He stated that he was no t_ asking for any additional sign, in fact, he is asking for a reduction in signing. Mr. Rominger stated that in the appeal process, he has noticed that in each stage of committee hearings, there is a carry over of a minimum of one individual to the other committee. He stated that in the judicial process, when there is an appeal, the appellant goes before a new committee or judge. He stated that at the Archi- tectural Review Committee meeting there were four persons present, three of whom had already gone over the application. Mr. Rominger requested that there be a continuance so they could go back to the original Sign Review Committee and begin over. He stated that it really isn't an appeal when all the same people are at the various stages of the appeal. Mr. Kee stated that the applicant--is requesting an apFearance before the Sign Review Committee-and it was his suggestion that since the committee was created by the City Council, he would recommend that the request be referred to the City Council. It is a matter of procedure in referring something to a committee formed by the City Council. Commissioner Hebard stated that the applicant has raised a question regarding the appeal process that possibly the City Council should hear. Maybe there is something that could be improved in the process. Commissioner Hebard moved that S.A. 75-88 be continued to the first meeting in January, 1976, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimous- ly adopted. Mr. Kee suggested that the Commission recommend to the City Council that a referral of this request be made to the Sign Review Committee in order that the applicant can go before them and discuss the sign. Commissioner Hebard moved that the applicant's request to meet with the Sign Review Committee be referred to the City Council, seconded by Commissioner Campos and unanimously adopted. - 2 - S.A. 75-89 Appeal by Mr. Edward A. Rogers, on behalf Jim's Auto Repair of Jim's Auto Repair and Used Cars, of a decision of the Planning Director which denied a sign, as requested, to be located on property known as 2068 South Winchester Boulevard in a C-3-S Zone. Commissioner Pack reported that the Architectural Review Committee met with the applicant and his attorney and recommends denial of the appeal. The Sign Review Committee also reviewed the sign application and they recommended that a low-profile free-standing sign would be more appropriate at this location. Mr. Kee stated that he would like to comment on three things in the applicant's letter of appeal. Paragraph III - referring to the meeting between the City Attorney, the Planning Director, Mr. Powell, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Hash. Mr. Rogers stated in the letter of appeal that: "At said meeting appellant indicated that he would submit a sign application that would be reduced in size by l/3. It appeared at said meeting that a reduction in size of 1/3 would meet the re- quirements of the committee." Mr. Kee advised the Sign Review Committee is the only one that can make that decision. Paragraph V - Mr. Kee stated that the staff has no control over the committee. They can rule on any application they wish to. It was his opinion that it would be referred to the Planning Commission. Parat^aph VI - In reply to the statements made by Mr. Rogers, Mr. Kee stated that he was not a lawyer and there was no intention on his part to interpret the law. The City Attorney was there for that purpose. The emotional part came when it was suggested by Mr. Rogers that a deal be made and for the record he would like that clarified. There is only one application before the Commission--the other one has been resolved through the courts. The meeting with the applicant and his attorney was concluded because there was nothing further to discuss. Chairman Lubeckis asked if at the present there is a conforming or non-conforming sign. Mr. Kee stated that it was his understanding that there is an illegal sign which has been erected without a permit. This matter has been through the court and there has been a decision rendered. The sign has not been approved at this time. Commissioner Campos stated that the letter indicates that there are similar signs in the immediate area and the indication is that the sign the applicant has is illegal. Mr. Kee replied that the one on the building is illegal. That is not the one before the Commission at this time. The one before the Commission is approximately 1/3 less in size than the one on the building. Commissioner Campos asked if there were similar signs in the immediate area as the one being proposed. - 3 - Mr. K~:e replied not in the staff's opinia,~. The main part of the staff's recommendation is the interpretation of the ordinance that applies and the applicant has c}uoted thatrin paragraph Ii of his ~c~ler. It was the opinion of the Sign Review Committee and the Sign Advisor that the s~vn is t~,~~ large and on that basis the staff sent the letter of denial. Chaii~~an Lubeckis asked if the applicant wished to be heard. Edward A. Rogers, attorney at law, representing Mr. Hash, stated that h~~ w~=. :`_ t_; :..z-~~~nt with Mr. Rominger as to the appeal process. There %+• ~_- _ , ~sRFtt on the Commission and two have already re •' .:d the_±• u`~--~ -- _ _`~ stat,~.~ that the sign which Mr. Hash p~ _: ~ was done in good r:~.?_ ~ ~ . :;. ;reviewed the history of the E- Ling sign and the procE~ F:_Jh the court. Mr. Rogers cited examples of other signs in the area--Copper Kettle, Winchester Hardware, Cycle Shop, etc. He stated that Mr. Hash proposes to make the sign 1/3 less and if ~,ecessary wS.l.l make it 1/2 less. He stated they would redesign the sign.:an.d:..wauld::..raaher get an approval than go through the c:;runc:il with an appeal. H.e asked. that they be told what is wanted ~,r;a th~.y will come back with a new sign. ~ K:ee s1-~at.ed..ahat, t'he application before them is 1/3 less, not ~t.~, If ~~r;y wisp to consider one that is less it has ,been the prat t s {~ .~ - _x •e;~t;t• ,.:.~ ~:~ppli.cation back to the Sign Review Committee for c:,~.~ ~ ~ c~ > NP suggested that the Commission might want to make th~~ ~. me reccmmendation as on the previous application. A new applic,~':ioz cc,;~ld be filed while this one is in process. Commissioner Heh~T•~'~ moved that S.A. 75-89 be referred back to the Architectural Rev i.e,Fr Committee and continued to the first meeting in January:, l9'~6,: seconded by Commissioner Samuelson. Motion adopted unanimously. Comr.~v~-c+r~•+• nickson• stated that. he has heard two applicants state the, " --- xnhappy with the appeal process and he asked for Mr . _ _' ~r.~ i ~' - opinion. Mr. t s.~r.:kwuY~t:i. :.~~..' :.. a:~ ., ', j~h=., ~: are no judicial rules or procedures ap~,lieable to the. c•..~.':tr !'~~-^*~<:. There is ample precedence of Com,nissions setting ~:r '- own committees and having the same people servi~~g on them he cited as examples the Congress and State legisl~ t ~r tie . Chairman LuLeckis declared a recess at 8:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS UP 75-14 This is the time and place for public Second Start hearing on the application of Betty J. Learning Center Siemer, on behalf of Second St art Learning Disabili ties Program, Inc. for approval of plans to use the facilities of the Campbel:~. r:~-~>tist Church for an education - 4 - institution on property known as 151 Sunnyside Avenue in an R-2-S Zone. Chairman Lubeckis asked Mr. Kee for his comments. Mr. Kee stated that the applicant is requesting a use permit to allow a tutorial service and a small school for people with learning disabilities. The staff has inspected the site and is of the opinion that there is adequate parking available. Staff has recommended approval subject to four conditions outlined in the staff report. However, condition 1 states that occupancy not to exceed ten students at a time and this has been changed to thirty students. Commissioner Hebard asked if the applicant is in concurrence with the recommended conditions. Mr. Kee replied that she is. Chairman Lubeckis declared the public ring open and asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the proposed use. Betty Siemer stated that she was one of the directors of the Second Start School and they are in agreement with the conditions. She briefly outlined the purpose of the school. There are no handi- capped or emotionally disturbed people attending--only those that have learning disabilities and the ages range from 4 to 40. Commissioner Pack asked if these are students who can't be handled through the public schools. Ms. Siemer stated that is so--their program is unique in that it is very prescriptive and very diagnostic. There is a lot of special training required of the teachers. Chairman Lubeckis asked who referred pupils to them. Ms. Siemer stated that the schools, doctors, neurologists, parents of children who have attended previously. Commissioner Pack asked if this type of facility is better for their work than a school. Ms. Siemer stated that it works fine for them. This is a private school and public schools do not have room for them. Besides, they cannot afford the rent. Commissioner Hebard moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Campos and unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 1482 Commissioner D= on moved that Resolution No. 1482 be adc d approving UP 75-14, application of and Start Learning Center, subject to the ~~.r conditions recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Pack and adopted by the following roll call vote: - 5 - AYES: Commissioners: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack, Lubeckis NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Stewart PD 75-7 This is the time and place for public hear- Beckenhauer, ing to consider the application of Donald Donald K. K. Beckenhauer, on behalf of the Rinconada Hi11s Christian Church for approval of conceptual plans and a.,development schedule to allow construction of a housing and recreat,ipn center for senior citizens on property known as 1871 and 1961 Pollard Road in a P-D Zpne. Mr. Kee stated that the staff and Architectural Review Committee recommends approval of the conceptual plans. The original recommen- dation was for continuance so the location of buildings and the cir- culation pattern could be revised. However, at the committee meeting, it was determined that they could be changed and, therefore, the recommendation of approval of the conceptual plans is being made. The conditions of approval are before the Commission and the first condition would require that the applicant secure site and archi- tectural approval. This would .be a 60-unit project and there is a definite need in the community for such a facility. Commissioner Pack advised that the Architectural Review Committee reviewed the application and is•agreeable to recommending approval of the conceptual plans. Mr. Kee stated that the recommendation is that the Commission recommend approval of the conceptual plans and forward the proposal on to the City Council for action. Chairman Lubeckis asked if the Architectural Advisor had reviewed the plans. Mr. Kee stated that he had. He was in agreement that there should be more space between the buildings and the revised plans will be reviewed by him also. Commissioner Hebard asked if this proposal is being developed under any H.E.W. Plana Mr. Kee stated there was no indication to that effect. Chairman Lubeckis declared the public hearing open and asked if the applicant wished to be heard. Mr. Donald Beckenhauer, Executive Chairman of the Board .of the Rinconada Hills Christian Church, stated that they are not consider- ing any federal funding. They are attempting to do this project within their own funding capabilities. - 6 - Commissioner Hebard stated that usually this type of development is referred to the County Housing Authority to see if they have any comments. There are certain requirements for facilities of this }:ir.d and he asked Mr. Beckenhauer if the plan included all the amenities especially designed for the elderly, such as especially designed bathrooms, etc. Mr. Beckenhauer stated that the contractor and building designer are aware of the requirements and they are anxious to comply with all things that are normally required and would be of benefit to the people living in the units. Commissioner Hebard asked about the transportation in the area. Mr. Beckenhauer stated that the bus goes up Pollard Road and there is a shopping center right across the street and a hospital less than a mile away. There are a number of reasons why they felt this was an appropriate location for the facility. Chairman Lubeckis asked how many people the center would accommodate. Mr. Beckenhauer stated that there are 60 2-bedroom units which could possibly take care of 120 persons. Commissioner Hebard stated that he would like to hear from the architect and asked if there are any differences between the bu~ld- ing code requirements and the requirements that would be made by H,U.D, ~. Mr. Key advised that this is not a H.U.D. Program. Mr, Hebard stated that under the H.U.D. Program there are very strict regulations as to how hallways, doorways, bathrooms, etc. are constructed for senior citizen projects and he wanted to know if these same requirements are contained in .our building code. Mr. Kee stated that he did not know of_;anything in the building code other thin. what refers to the handicapped. If the Commission is concerned, it could be reviewed when the plans come back for site approval., Chairman Lubec~is asked if anyone else wished to be heard. Mr. Bob Ferguson, building designer, stated that he has read the entire H.U~.D, book as put out and as far as he knew this project will meet their requirements. They are very broadly written and the project will be better than required by H.U.D. Commissioner Hebard stated that these requirements can be reviewed at the time the final plans are submitted. Commissioner .Pack suggested that staff investigate if there are any federal or state regulations placed on developments for senior citizens that they are not aware of. Mr. Kee stated that staff can check this out and have the information - 7 - available when the plans come back before the Commission. Commissioner Hebard moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Pack and unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 1483 AYES: Commissioners: NOES: ABSENT; Commissioner Hebard moved that Resolution No. 1483 be adopted recommending to the City Council that the conceptual plans and development schedule far PD 75-7 be approved, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and adopted by the following roll call vote: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack, Lubeckis Commissioners: None Commissioners: Stewart Commissioner Hebard stated that the Commission has adopted a policy that such developments be referred to the County Housing Authority and to the Civic-Improvement Commission so they are aware of what is being proposed. Mr. Kee stated that staff can refer the plans to these agencies. Commissioner Hebard asked if the neighborhood was posted and Mr. Kee advised it was. ZC 75-4 This is the time and place Leigh 1975-1 for public hearing to consider prezoning of properties known as Leigh 1975-1 as-C-2-S (.General Commercial) and R-1 (Single Family Residential). Said properties known as 2072,2080 and 2100 South Bascom Avenue and 1051 E1 Solyo Avenue. - 8 - Mr. Kee stated that the prezoning is in accordance with the General Plan except for one parcel. Staff recommends that A.P.N. 288-8-17, 19, 20, 21 and 22 be prezoned C-2-S and A,P.N. 288-8-18 be prezoned R-1. If the Commission and Council approve the prezoning as recommended, it will necessitate a change in the General Plan at the next review time in January. The Council will consider the prezoning and annexation, possibly on the same agenda. There being no one wishing to be heard,. Commissioner Hebard moved that the public hearing be closed, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION N0. 1484 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners: Commissioner Dickson moved that Resolution No. 1484 be adopted recommending to the City Council that ZC 75-4 be approved as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and adopted by the following roll call vote: Hebard, Campos, Dickson, Samuelson, Pack, Lubeckis Commissioners: None Commissioners: Stewart MISCELLANEOUS Planning Commissioners' Handbook - 9 - Mr. Kee reported that the final draft of the Commissioners' Handbook is being prepared and will be included in the agenda package of the December 18 meeting. Social Services Mr. Kee stated that the City Study Committee Report Council has asked for comments on the Social Services Study as it relates to the Planning Commission. The final report is in two parts: (1) Social Services Element and (2) the Action Plan. Mr. Kee stated that it might be appropriate for the Commission to forward their comments on to the Council and it would be up to the Council to determine if they intend. to have a Social Services Element to the General Plan. This would require public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Commissioner Dickson stated that he was in agreement that the study reflects a lot of effort and time and is put together very well. He could see no useful purpose in renaming the Civic Improvement Commission and if the City Council would like to have a Social Services Element in the General Plan, the Commission should go on record as being in favor of a public hearing. Commissioner Samuelson was of the opinion that they should look at it as a report and accept it and pass it on. He stated he would not be in favor of taking this document and making it into an element of the General Plan. If it came to that, he would suggest changes in the wording. Commissioner Pack stated .that a lot of time and study has gone into the report and she was in favor of accepting the study. She could not find anything that she would like_.to-change in the final report. Chairman Lubeckis stated that he was of the same feeling. It is a most useful document and he stated that he was not qualified to criticize the report. Commissioner Hebard stated that the Council did ask the Commission for comment as a possible element to the General Plan. He stated there should be a definition of Social Services. It should be de- cided what Social Services are before we consider an element to the General Plana He also had some questions regarding the Preamble to the Social Services Element on Page 2 of the Study and the quota- tion from the League of California Cities and the language on Page 3 with reference to the "city." It also points out that cities should monitor services of other agencies and he questioned whether the City should assume that role. He also questioned the mechanics itself. As a Social Services Element of the General Plan it goes through the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. It would seem to him that it would place the Planning Commission and possibly the Planning Department in the area of social planning as well as land use planning. He stated he was not sure if the Planning Commission is prepared to do that or if the Council is prepared to put this role on the Planning Commission. He thought that careful consideration should be given before taking action to put something like this in the - 10 - General Plan without thoroughly considering the mechanics that might follow. He thought there might be another way to handle the element of the General Plan and the Council might want to handle it through another Commission. Chairman Lubeckis stated that he did not think that they could arrange the pattern that has been started by the Council to involve Planning in the Social Services Element. He stated that the Commission is not qualified in many fields and did not know if they would be capable of coping with it. He asked if neighboring cities have this type of element and if it involves the Planning Commission. Mr. Kee advised that the Town of Los Gatos and Saratoga are involved in the same thing through ESO, In terms of goals and objectives, he could see no reason why the Commission could not take action on such things. Mr. Kee compared this to the Noise Element and stated that no one on the Commission or staff was qualified to discuss noise contours and they took the consultant's word. He could-see the similarity in this instance, with the exception that the Noise Element was a required element of the General Plan and the Social Services Element is not. Commissioner Campos stated that he would not like to be put in a position of completely closing the door on the Social Services Element as far as the Planning Commission is concerned. He stated he was impressed by the study and he was of the opinion that the Commission should take a closer look at it and not close the door. Chairman Lubeckis advised that the Council has asked for comments as to whether it should be adopted as an element of the General Plan. Mr. Kee stated that the staff can prepare a memo to the City Council setting forth the comments that have been made by the Commission and bring it back to the Commission for approval. Commissioner Pack moved that the staff prepare a memo to the City Council forwarding the comments that were made by the Commission and bring the memo back to the Commission for approval, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unanimously adopted. Filing Fee in the Mr. Kee reported that the staff is Downtown. Area recommending that the Planning Commission discuss the waiving of filing fees and/or a text amendment to modify the review process for the downtown area. Commissioner Hebard moved that the staff prepare a draft to the PD Ordinance waiving the filing .fee in the downtown area and to reduce the 90 day processing time and to refer the draft to the Downtown Committee for comment, seconded by Commissioner Dickson and unanimously adopted. - 11 - Planning Commission Mr. Kee reported that the first Meeting Night meeting in January is on Thursday, January 1 and he asked the Commission what their preference would be for changing the meeting night. After discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Dickson that the meeting nights in January, 1976 be changed to the second and fourth Thursday of the month, seconded by Commissioner Samuelson and unani- mously adopted. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Hebard moved that the meeting be adjourned, seconded by Commissioner Campos and unanimously adopted, The meeting was adjourned at 9140 p.m. APPROVED: Ole`g L~bec~'cis , ~_ ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee, Secretary rma c~ ~, ~, ~~ RECORDED : -=~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ , - Phyllis Acker, Recorder - 12 -