Loading...
PC Min - 01/25/2011CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 2011, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Roseberry and the following proceedings were had, to wit: JANUARY 25, 2011 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Bob Roseberry Theresa Alster Mark Ebner Elizabeth Gibbons Paul Resnikoff Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES None Planning Manager: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary Paul Kermoyan Steve Prosser William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Reynolds, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of January 11, 2011, were approved. (6-0) COMMUNICATIONS 1. Correction memo for Agenda Item No. 1. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 25, 2011 Page 2 ORAL REQUESTS Mr. Bill Barnes, Resident on Latimer Circle: • Reported that he is a long-time resident of Fairmeadows HOA, which abuts the Water Company property. • Said that he attended meetings in the past at which the proposed Charities Housing development was discussed. • Added that he is concerned that a voluntary effort that had been agreed to between Charities Housing and Fairmeadows regarding site drainage issues is now at risk since Charities is no longer moving forward with this project. • Explained that there is a drain line located at the shared property line that will have to be removed and replaced with the redevelopment of the Water Company property. Charities had agreed to assist with the change out of this drain line. With a new developer now, this issue needs to be dealt with the new developer. • Said that the existing drain line has been there since the early 70's. It was a `permanent-temporary" drain line that is still in place. When the site is redeveloped this drain line must be moved and replaced. The existing drain is in a precarious location. • Said that the Charities' architect had developed a new drain line design and Fairmeadows thought it was a good plan. • Expressed hope that this issue would be taken care of as development occurs. Chair Roseberry said that more meetings would be held on that site. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan agreed and suggested that Mr. Barnes leave contact information for the Director to call him. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Roseberry read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN2010-160 Public Hearing to consider the application of Valley Oak thru PLN2010- Partners for a General Plan Amendment (PLN2010-160) from 164 Professional Office to Low-Medium Density Residential; a Zone Change (PLN2010-161) from P-O (Professional Office) to PD (Planned Development); a Planned Development Permit (PLN2010-162) to construct 21 small lot residences; a Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map (PLN2010-163) to create 22 lots (21 private and one common) and Tree Removal Permit (PLN2010- 164) to remove 40 protected trees on property located at 700 Gale Drive in a P-O (Professional Office) Zoning District. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: February 15, 2010. Project Planner: Steve Prosser, Associate Planner Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 25, 2011 Page 3 Mr. Steve Prosser, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the subject site consists of 1.89 gross acres on the south side of Gale Drive between San Tomas Expressway and Darryl Avenue. It is bordered by commercial uses to the north; residences to the west and south; and a creek to the east. The site is currently developed with a 58,000 square foot; two-story office building constructed circa 1973. • Described the proposed housing units as including two and three-story units with heights ranging from 26.4 feet to 35 feet. • Explained that the application includes a General Plan Amendment to change the existing land use from Professional Office to Low-Medium Density Residential; a Zone Change from P-O (Professional Office) to P-D (Planned Development); a Planned Development Permit to construct a 21-unit residential development; a Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map to create 21 residential lots and one common lot; and a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of 40 protected trees. • Reported that the proposed change to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to Low-Medium Density Residential is consistent with the uses in the immediate area. The surrounding pattern includes single-family residences and duplexes. This General Plan Amendment could be supported as is continues the surrounding pattern. • Added that the Zone Change from P-O to P-D is required to allow the construction of residential units. • Said that a Planned Development Permit allows project flexibility not available in other zones to result in optimum use and good design. This proposal meets the intent of the Code. The project provides private open space for the sole use of each unit. The project allows for individual ownership. • Stated that the Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map would create 21 residential lots and one common lot with one ingress/egress access onto Gale Drive and three private driveways also accessing directly onto Gale. The project has a shared driveway with CC&Rs for the operation and maintenance of common spaces. • Said that storm water is dealt with through catch basins. • Explained that the 21 units will consist of several models of two or three-story detached single-family units. The parcels adjacent to existing residences are limited to two-story models. The three-story models would be located within the interior of the site. • Said that the project incorporates traditional building forms; use of varied materials such as lap siding and divided-light windows and use of dormers to reduce the visual height impact of the third story. • Added that there is only an approximately 3 to 3.5 foot height differential between the two-story and three-story models. The maximum height is 35 feet for Plan 4. The maximum height allowed is 35. • Said a conservative stance on the grading plan conditions the retention of the existing grade relationship between these proposed new homes to the existing adjacent residences. • Reported that 56 parking spaces are proposed, 42 covered and 14 uncovered. A condition of approval requires that garages be maintained solely for vehicle parking. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 25, 2011 Page 4 • Explained that the parking standards are two spaces for standard single-family zoning and 3.5 spaces for condominium developments. Added that there are also between 7 and 13 street parking spaces available for resident parking. • Said that there are currently 41 protected trees in fair to poor condition with 40 proposed for removal, including 15 along the western property line and screening trees located along San Tomas Expressway. The applicant will replant 100 trees. • Stated that an Initial Study was prepared. Impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Staff is recommending that Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. The mitigation measures have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. The 20-day Initial Study comment period was between January 5th and 25th. No comments were received. • Reported that SARC reviewed the project on December 14, 2010. Their comments were incorporated in the plans or within the conditions of approval. • Said that a minor correction to the draft conditions was distributed as a table item this evening. • Recommended that the Commission take action to recommend adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; a General Plan Amendment from Professional Office to Low-Medium Density Residential; a Zone Change from P-O to P-D; a Planned Development Permit to construct 21 small lot single-family residences; a Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map to create 21 residential lots and one common lot; and a Tree Removal Permit to remove 40 trees. Chair Roseberry complimented Planner Steve Prosser for a good and detailed staff report. He asked the Commission if they had any questions for staff. Commissioner Gibbons agreed that this was a very helpful report. She reminded that at the Study Session the possibility of abandoning Gale Drive had been raised. She asked why that had not happened. Planner Steve Prosser replied that the applicant and adjacent property owner to the north discussed this idea but it did not come to fruition. Commissioner Gibbons said these lots are approximately 2,200 square foot lots when the usual lot size for asmall-lot development consists of 3,000 to 3,500 square feet. She asked if there have been other projects with such small lots. Planner Steve Prosser said there is a property east of City Hall for which the lots are also approximately 2,200 square feet. He agreed that the rest of the small-lot projects are usually approximately 3,000 to 3,500 square feet. Commissioner Gibbons pointed out Plan Sheet A-0-2 saying she was trying to understand how the lot lines run as the plans don't depict a fence between the patios. Planner Steve Prosser said that there is a zero lot line using easement rights over the patio. He added that there are still five-foot setbacks. Commissioner Gibbons said she had never approved a zero lot line project. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 25, 2011 Page 5 Planner Steve Prosser advised that the Summerhill Homes project along Hamilton Avenue included zero lot lines. Commissioner Gibbons said that was interesting. Planner Steve Prosser said that there is private separation between the building and the property line. Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that there are windows looking out onto patios of adjacent units. Planner Steve Prosser said only second story and above. He clarified that the Harrison Avenue project included four-foot setbacks and eight-foot separations. Commissioner Reynolds asked staff what happens to the Park Impact Fees of approximately $188,000 assessed for this project. Planner Steve Prosser said that the park fees go into a general fund to fund the creation of new park land. City Attorney Bill Seligmann clarified that the park fees collected don't go into the City's general fund but rather into a specific fund solely for the creation and refurbishment of parks. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if the 7 to 13 street parking spaces along Gale Drive are not already being used by nearby residents. Are these spaces actually going to be available to serve these new units? Planner Steve Prosser said that the street parking is for anyone's use and not just for this project. There are approximately 13 spaces along this project frontage. He added that whenever he has visited the project site those spaces have been available. Commissioner Alster presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • Said that SARC reviewed this project on December 14, 2010. • Stated that SARC supported the design and color schemes proposed. • Reported that the applicant was asked to revise their plans to better reflect internal consistency. • Added that the applicant was asked to revise their street perspective to reflect height differences. There was concern raised about building heights due to grade elevations. SARC requested that the pad elevations of the existing adjacent homes be included on the grading and drainage plans. Chair Roseberry asked if SARC's points have been addressed. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 25, 2011 Page 6 Planner Steve Prosser replied yes. The pad elevations are dealt with through language in the conditions of approval requiring the pad elevations to match existing adjacencies. Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that the maximum height allowed is 35 feet while one of the units is depicted at 35.1 feet. Planner Steve Prosser advised that the height would be reduced to meet the maximum 35 foot standard. He added that in the PD Zone, there is really no maximum height standard but the practice is to comply with other projects. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan pointed to Plan Sheet C-2 that provides spot elevations that are shown as a point of reference. Chair Roseberry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Mark Russell, Applicant, Valley Oak Partners, LLC: • Said that their project engineer is here this evening. • Stated that they recognize the importance of grade and they are fine with the condition imposed. They will make sure the grading is to the City's satisfaction. • Offered thanks for the time taken to review this project. It is the culmination of numerous reiterations. • Said that they have eliminated a number of issues including lowering the original density; reducing the height of those homes to be located next to existing adjacent homes; provided an on-site park and dealt with on-site parking provision. • Said that while a more dense project might result in a greater economic project; this is a better designed project that will be well received and provide a significant improvement to the neighborhood. • Advised that they have read the conditions of approval and are asking the Planning Commission to recommend Council approve this project. • Stated that they are proud of this project. It is an example of redevelopment that the City can be proud of. • Added that they have been pleased with their communications with staff. This has been the most professional experience they have encountered in working together with a City's staff with consistently good communication. Chair Roseberry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Said that he was glad that there would be no three-story units located next to existing adjacent residences. • Asked what the plan is to determine which of the units would be three-stories. • Expressed concern with the vagueness of a range between zero to 11 for the number of three-story units within the development. Commissioner Gibbons: • Pointed out that this issue came up at the Study Session. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 25, 2011 Page 7 • Reminded that these units are proposed to be built to buyers' preferences at which time the decision is made on whether a two or three-story unit would be constructed. • Said that there has been a lot of talk about density. The intention of the ordinance is not to push against the envelope but rather to set limits. • Stated that the project has good features and points but she is concerned over the loss of all trees along the San Tomas Expressway right-of-way. These units range between five to seven feet from the fence line, which leaves smaller dimensions to put trees in along there with sufficient space to grow big. That is one of the challenges of a 2,000 square foot lot. • Said she could see removing some of those trees but not all. • Advised that she has no problem with the zone change. • Stressed the need to always be careful about parking. Said that if there were 10 two-bedroom and 11 three-story units that would result in 85 bedrooms. Parking is sometimes determined by housing type and other times by number of bedrooms. • Added that usually street parking is not counted. • Said that Lot 19 is tight. The sidewalk from parking to right corner of the building is tight. • Questioned what types of trees are proposed to be planted. What species and canopy they would create. • Said that a zero lot line is okay but that she questions how the open space would be shared. • Stated that applicants need to be careful to not over complete their project plans before it is approved. This is a very complete set of drawings but that does not mean the Commission is obligated to approve them simply because they are so complete. • Advised that she is a little hesitant on this project at this point. Commissioner Alster: • Advised that she likes the project. • Said that the height difference between two and three-story units is only 8'8". The project is stepped down at the street and that works well. • Expressed appreciation for the changes made as recommended by SARC particularly in regards to the grade issues. • Said that the parking is generous compared to parking provided at her development. • Said this is a good project that has been worked on for quite a while. • Said she lives in a similar development and finds it to be very livable. Commissioner Reynolds: • Said he likes the project and it seems to fit the needs of the neighborhood more than what is currently there. • Said he wants to go on the record stating that there is not much focus on park space or developments conducive to families with children. There is no room for parents to put up swing sets for their children on these small lots. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 25, 2011 Page 8 • Added that there is a lack of park space in the city. The closest park to this project seems to be John D. Morgan Park and a couple of nearby schools. • Stated that he would support the project but wants to go on the record with those concerns. Commissioner Ebner: • Said he had no problem with the zone change. • Added that this is the right place for this project and it is an improvement. • Expressed concern about the density of the project and the fact that the overall total number of bedrooms for the project is rather vague right now until the final mix of two versus three-story units is determined. • Said that the more bedrooms a unit has the more parking it would need. • Stated that parking on the street is not reliable. • Suggested pinning down the number of two versus three-story units. • Said that he too has a problem with the removal of all of the trees at the back and suggested retaining those existing trees along the San Tomas Expressway. • Asked staff if the project is under parked. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan said yes it is. Where 3.5 spaces per unit are required, 2.66 per unit are provided with this project. Chair Roseberry: • Said that this is a good project that many have worked hard on. • Stated that there is a changing demographic and people are looking at different types of residential projects including more dense projects where there is less yard to take care of. • Reminded that there is a central green area included in this project. • Agreed that this project offers an improvement to what is currently on the site. • Pointed out that the original proposal was more densely developed than it is now. The applicant listened to the City's concerns. • Said that the project review was not rushed. There were two study sessions and a SARC review. Planner Steve Prosser clarified that one study session was with Council and the other was with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Roseberry said that a good deal of thought has gone into this project. It is a good project. Commissioner Gibbons suggested conditioning a specific number of two versus three- story units. Planner Steve Prosser said those restrictions are indicated on the project plans. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan said the potential locations for three-story units are depicted on Plan Sheet C-4. He said one possible option to respond to the Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 25, 2011 Page 9 Commission's' concern is to establish a mandatory minimum number of three-story units. Commissioner Roseberry said one consideration is how to make sure the project doesn't end up with just one three-story unit and the rest two-story. Commissioner Alster: • Stated that she has personally seen a trend whereby parents will move into higher density developments while their children are small but move out before those children reach school age. • Said that she has aschool-aged child and lives in a higher density development. Her daughter often laments the few children of her age to be found living in their development. Instead of potential playmates, there are only babies and toddlers. Commissioner Ebner; • Said that this is a beautiful project. • Added that he likes the architecture and proposed color schemes. • Stated that this is a great spot for such a project. • Listed the issues of parking and removal of the trees along the back as his main concerns. Planner Steve Prosser: • Pointed out that no matter what residential project might be constructed on this property, even a less dense one, those trees along the back would have to come out with redevelopment of this site. • Explained that development standards require the construction of a masonry sound wall separating this site from the San Tomas Expressway to serve as a sound barrier. These trees are in the way of constructing such a sound wall. Commissioner Reynolds reminded that there is still the issue of the number of two versus three-story units. Commissioner Resnikoff said that generally developments are built before they are sold and suggested several lots that on Plan Sheet C-4 that might be logical for three- story units. Chair Roseberry said he agrees that one would not want to see a single odd-ball three- story unit. He suggested one option that if a three-story unit is built it would need to be adjacent to another three-story unit. Commissioner Resnikoff suggested perhaps limiting the number of any one design to avoid too many of the same units. Chair Roseberry said that since the three-story units are to be located at the central core of the project site, it seems like it would be okay but perhaps there should be a minimum standard established, perhaps a minimum of three three-story units. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 25, 2011 Page 10 Commissioner Resnikoff said in general this is a great project. Chair Roseberry said the issue of what number of three-story or repeat design units may naturally take care of itself based on buyer demand or preferences. Commissioner Reynolds questioned whether model units would be built on spec. Chair Roseberry said probably so to help sell the development. Commissioner Resnikoff said he would love to hear from the applicant what they plan and when they will decide what they will build. Commissioner Gibbons suggested addition a condition with a minimum and maximum number of three-story units to be built in designated areas of the development. She suggested that perhaps a condition could be added that no identical units are built on adjacent lots. Chair Roseberry pointed out that a maximum is already set at 11. He asked if a minimum number of three-story units should be established. Chair Roseberry re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Roseberry asked the applicant about project phasing and whether most units would be built to suit. Mr. Mark Russell, Project Applicant, Valley Oak Partners, LLC: • Reminded that the established standard for height differential between units has been conditioned and would address concerns. • Said that there would be some spec building. • Added that as a developer they want to maintain as much flexibility as possible. Chair Roseberry said that the developers likely want to move through their project without big stops. It would be less attractive for new buyers to move into a stopped project. Mr. Bill Barnes, Resident on Latimer Circle: • Explained that he resides within a nearby townhome community. • Reminded that the two-story units are only three feet shorter than the three-story design. • Cautioned that having trees planted along a sound wall are problematic as they eventually cause damage to the wall. • Agreed with Commissioner Alster's observation that families with young children living within a townhome community due tend to move away as those children get older. That has been the trend in his development. • Added that there is open space area in his development that the children don't tend to use. Instead they choose to play on the street. • Said that the number of bedrooms versus parking provided is a concern. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 25, 2011 Page 11 • Pointed out that his own townhome development has some four bedroom units with only two parking spaces. • Said that his development has 210 trees fora 100 unit townhome community. • Said that care must be taken in selecting the trees. • Reported that they have had problems with the many liquidambar trees that were originally planted at their development. • Said that careful tree planting including proper spacing of trees is a concern in a tight community. Chair Roseberry re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Alster, the Planning Commission took the following actions: • Adopted Resolution No. 4007 recommending the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; • Adopted Resolution No. 4008 recommending approval of a General Plan Amendment (PLN2010-160) from Professional Office to Low-Medium Density Residential; • Adopted Resolution No. 4009 recommending approval of a Zone Change (PLN2010-161) from P-O (Professional Office) to PD (Planned Development); • Adopted Resolution No. 4010 recommending approval of a Planned Development Permit (PLN2010-162) to construct 21 small lot residences; • Adopted Resolution No. 4011 recommending approval of a Tentative Vesting Subdivision Map (PLN2010-163) to create 22 lots (21 private and one common); and • Adopted Resolution No. 4012 recommending approval of a Tree Removal Permit (PLN2010-164) to remove 40 protected trees on property located at 700 Gale Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alster, Ebner, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Roseberry NOES: Gibbons ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Roseberry advised that this item will be considered by the City Council for final action at its meeting of February 15, 2011. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan added the following information to the Director's Report: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for January 25, 2011 Page 12 • Announced that the League of California Cities Planners Institute will take place in Pasadena in March. The City has funds available to send two Planning Commissioners to this conference. Interested Commissioners are asked to notify staff of their interest in attending. • Reminded that the joint Planning Commission/City Council study session on the Parking Ordinance will take place on Tuesday, February 1St, at 6:15 p.m. • Advised that a new Commissioner has been appointed. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 8, 2011. ~~~ SUBMITTED BY: ~ /~J" """' Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary r ~! ``J APPROVED BY: ~ ~- `~~ ~"12t Bob Rosebe ry, air ATTEST: Paul Kerm yan, Acting Secretary