Loading...
PC Mins 08/23/2011CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. AUGUST 23, 2011 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY The Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 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: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Community Development Director: Planning Manager: Associate Planner: Assistant Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Bob Roseberry Theresa Alster Brian Brennan Elizabeth Gibbons Paul Resnikoff Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Mark Ebner Kirk Heinrichs Paul Kermoyan Steve Prosser Daniel Fama William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Brennan, seconded by Commissioner Alster, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of August 9, 2011, were approved. 5-0-1-1; Commissioner Ebner was absent and Commissioner Gibbons abstained) Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS 1. One email regarding Agenda Item No. 1. 2. Three letters and one email regarding Agenda Item No. 3. 3. One letter regarding Agenda Item No. 4. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Roseberry read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: PLN2011-102 Public Hearing to consider the application of Centro Armonia Centro Preschool for a Modification to a previously approved Armonia Conditional Use Permit (PLN2011-102) to increase enrollment Preschool from 52 to 72 children associated with a commercial daycare on property located at 531 W. Rincon Avenue in a P-F (Public Facilities) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Steve Prosser, Associate Planner Mr. Steve Prosser, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the applicant is seeking approval of a Modification to a previously approved Use Permit for 531 W. Rincon Avenue, one parcel of a three parcel site. • Explained that a private school is operated on the parcel fronting on Dot Avenue, the subject preschool on the W. Rincon frontage and the church on the parcel between San Tomas and Dot fronting on W. Campbell Avenue. • Advised that a private school was approved in 1963 along the Dot Avenue frontage. The preschool was originally approved in 1976 and in 2005 was relocated to Buildings B and C which front onto Rincon Avenue. • Said that the preschool currently allows a maximum of 52 children and the applicant is requesting an increase to 72. • Stated that the W. Rincon site has no on-site parking. An outdoor play area is located to the west of the buildings. The site is adjacent to multi-family residential. • Added that the applicant also seeks an expansion in hours of operation that would allow employees on site between 6:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. and business hours with children and/or parents on site between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 3 • Said that one of the proposed conditions of approval would restrict use of the outdoor play area to the hours between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. State licensing requirements for indoor space per child is 35 square feet. The available interior space can accommodate up to 72 children. The minimum outdoor play area required is 75 square feet per child. This site's available 5,000 square foot play area does not meet the State standard of outdoor space to serve 72 children. • Added that the State licensing is willing to grant an exception to expand the students at this preschool as long as there are never more than 67 children using the outdoor play area at any given time. • Explained that there is no on-site parking. Another draft condition of approval would require a gate that currently is kept closed that blocks off the available parking lot on the adjacent parcel (owned by same property owner as this site) would be kept open during operational hours for use in child drop off and pick up and for employee parking. • Reported that two letters in opposition were received chiefly with noise concerns. • Recommended the adoption of a resolution allowing this Modification to a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Gibbons clarified with staff that there are three separate parcels with one owner. Planner Steve Prosser said yes. Commissioner Gibbons questioned how the original Conditional Use Permit that was issued for another building on another property was moved into this building on a separate parcel. Planner Steve Prosser said that the relocation was approved at staff level. It appears that at the time it was thought to be one parcel. Commissioner Gibbons recalled a play area being installed in the wrong area of the property and had to be relocated after complaints were received. Planner Steve Prosser said that in approximately 2005, this issue was brought before the Planning Commission. The applicant was asked to relocate the play area further away from adjacent residences. Commissioner Gibbons reminded that there is no on-site parking or access to parking. This parcel is landlocked. They currently use parking from John D. Morgan Park located across the street. Planner Steve Prosser agreed that there is no parking for their site. Commissioner Alster asked staff if there is any documentation outlining the State's willingness to issue a waiver to allow a substandard ratio of outdoor space to serve the proposed 72 students. Why would the Department of Social Services grant such a waiver? Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 4 Planner Steve Prosser: • Advised that State's waiver is pending local approval. • Added that since the interior space is adequate to serve 72 students and the outdoor space sufficient to serve 67 students, the preschool would have to stagger the use of the outdoor play area. • Said that the children would be split by two age groups when using the outdoor play area. Commissioner Reynolds asked who would enforce this restriction should this application be approved. Planner Steve Prosser said that the Fire District enforces under contract through performance of annual and spot inspections or upon complaint. Commissioner Reynolds asked what the City's jurisdiction is. Planner Steve Prosser replied the provisions of the conditions of approval, which can be investigated upon complaint. Commissioner Resnikoff pointed out that the play area schedule appears to be two 50 minute time frames and one 30 minute time frame. Are these the only times the play area are used. Planner Steve Prosser said yes. He added that the preschool program ends at noon and the balance of the day is true daycare. Commissioner Resnikoff said that the letters received indicate noise impacts from the outdoor play area throughout the day. Planner Steve Prosser said that the private school located off Dot Avenue also uses the same area for its play and lunch breaks. Commissioner Resnikoff asked what the current student split for is use of the play area. Planner Steve Prosser said that they now have only 52 students or approximately 26 children per shift using the play area. Commissioner Brennan asked why the maximum number of 67 was established for the play area. Planner Steve Prosser said it was not noise impacts but rather safety and overcrowding concerns including the number of children to be supervised. Commissioner Resnikoff pointed out the Parking and Circulation Map shown that depicts the parking lot. He questioned the use of Rincon for drop off of children and whether that practice should be restricted. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 5 Planner Steve Prosser explained that currently the gates to the adjacent related parcel's parking lot are kept closed. Commissioner Resnikoff expressed support for a condition to prohibit the drop off of children along Rincon Avenue. Planner Steve Prosser said that a condition to prohibit drop off on a public street would be consistent. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan added that staff had identified problem areas including where parents are dropping off their children on the street. He added that staff has worked with the applicant to create a circulation plan and get drop off and parking activities off the street and onto the private property. Chair Roseberry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Kurt Anderson, Applicant: • Said he was pleased to be here and thanked staff. • Assured that existing vinyl canopies that are in question will be cleared up with the Building Department to make sure they are okay. • Advised that there would never be 72 children out in the play area at any one time. They accept the limitations of 67 outside at any given time. • Added that the school must be able to increase to 72 students indoors. • Explained that the minimum outdoor space provision requirements per child allow children sufficient space to stretch their legs and run around. Chair Roseberry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Gibbons: • Stated that she remembered the situation with the playground. • Said that she found it odd that the Use Permit for this preschool was moved across property lines. • Reminded that children use the play area from both the Rincon and Dot schools. • Added that the gates blocking the parking area are always closed. • Said that she is a little hesitant on this one. Commissioner Brennan asked what is meant by this being an isolated parcel. Commissioner Gibbons: • Explained that the site has no parking of its own. Instead parking is on another parcel. • Cautioned that if this parcel is sold off, the parking could possibly no longer be available to serve this parcel. • Asked staff if the Use Permit could be rescinded if off-street parking were no longer available. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 6 City Attorney Seligmann said that if that were to happen (loss of use of adjacent parking area) this Use Permit could be brought back to the Commission for review. Commissioner Brennan: • Said that he is inclined to support this request. • Suggested the addition of a condition of approval to prohibit drop offs on the street along Rincon. Pointed out that a daycare center will always include the sounds of children. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Said that he too is inclined to condition parking and drop off occurring on site. • Recounted that he lived next to an elementary school in the past and agrees that there is noise there. • Said he too agrees that all parking and drop off must occur on private property and not on the public street. Commissioner Reynolds: • Agreed with the prohibition of drop off on Rincon. • Said that kids would be kids as far as noise. • Pointed out that there is already a park and playground located across the street. • Reminded that this school has been here for a long time. The residences came after the school did. Expressed his support for this request. Commissioner Alster: • Stated her concurrence. Questioned the concern raised in a neighbor's letter about screaming occurring late into the evening. • Asked how that is possible. Would the playground be used to 9 p.m.? That would seem to be excessive hours to allow for noise. Commissioner Gibbons: • Reminded that there are two schools and both use this play area. • Added that the daycare that used to operate along the Dot frontage was relocated to the Rincon frontage. • Suggested that kids from the Dot school may be using the play area later in the day than the children from this preschool use it. Chair Roseberry: • Said that he had been sensitive to the school being there first but was concerned about increasing the number of students. • Added that, after listening this evening, he finds that the existing situation can be made better with a condition that requires drop off to occur on private property and be prohibited from the public street (Rincon). This is a safety issue. • Stated that he shares Commissioner Gibbon's concerns regarding shared use. • Said that per the staff report, outdoor activities end at 6 p.m. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 7 • Questioned the overlap of use of the play area with the other school. What is the total time of use of this outdoor area? • Reiterated that there are two entities (schools) using this play area. Planner Steve Prosser: • Said that when established in 1963, there was one school on site. That private school was relocated and downsized to one building. • Said that in 2005, Buildings B and C were occupied by this preschool. Chair Roseberry: • Reiterated that now two separate schools share use of a common play area. • Questioned how the use was granted. Planner Steve Prosser: • Explained that the property owner had a Conditional Use Permit from 1963 to operate a private school on its property. • Added that in 1976, the Adventists were given permission to operate a daycare on the property and did so through 2005. • Reported that the approval records are vague. Chair Roseberry said that this sounds complicated. Director Kirk Heinrichs: • Said that there are multiple parcels owned and used by one owner. That is a similar situation to the Pruneyard which consists of several parcels. Use of the parcels goes hand in hand. • Suggested that the Commission could condition the execution of a reciprocal parking agreement. Commissioner Gibbons said that the housing adjacent to the daycare was built in the 1990's while the playground was built in 2000 or 2001. Therefore the housing existed prior to the playground. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan clarified that the housing located on the parcel to the immediate left of the playground has afour-plex that was just recently finaled. Commissioner Reynolds expressed support for a reciprocal parking agreement. Director Kirk Heinrichs said that alternately the Commission could ask staff to draft a condition of approval that ties the provision of off-street parking to this Conditional Use Permit. City Attorney William Seligmann added that either an easement or covenant requiring reciprocal use of parking is an option. He provided the following proposed text for a new condition concerning provision of parking: The applicant shall provide a recorded document, satisfactory to the City Attorney and Community Development Director, guaranteeing the availability of the parking area for the use of the daycare. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 8 Director Kirk Heinrichs asked the Commission for clarification of its position on allowing hours up to 9:30 p.m. Chair Roseberry said that the report would have to be modified as the report currently lists hours from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Planner Steve Prosser explained that the Zoning Code allows the Planning Commission to establish hours for commercial day care uses between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. through issuance of a Condition Use Permit. Commissioner Brennan said that he is fine as long as outdoor activity is limited to no later than 6 p.m. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Brennan, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4031 approving a Modification to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit (PLN2011-102) to increase enrollment from 52 to 72 children associated with a commercial daycare on property located at 531 W. Rincon Avenue, subject to the conditions of approval with the following additions: • Add a condition prohibiting the drop off or pick up of children from the public street (Rincon Avenue); • Add a condition that states that: The applicant shall provide documentation acceptable to the City Attorney regarding a reciprocal parking agreement; • Modify the allowable hours: o Business hours from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. o Operational hours from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alster, Brennan, Gibbons, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Ebner ABSTAIN: None Chair Roseberry advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar Days. *** Chair Roseberry read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 9 2. PLN2011-156 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Frank Leamy Leamy, F. for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2011-156) to allow general liquor sales and minor interior remodel in conjunction with an existing restaurant (Mama Mia's) on property located at 200 E. Hamilton Avenue in a C-2 (General Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Steve Prosser, Associate Planner Mr. Steve Prosser, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Reported that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional use Permit to allow general on-sale alcohol sales with an existing restaurant. • Described the project site as being on the southeast corner at Hamilton and Third. Surrounding uses include offices to the east, west and south and commercial to the north. The building is 4,000 square feet and parking includes 38 spaces. • Added that no changes are proposed to the building's square footage, exterior or parking. Reminded that a Use Permit is required to allow general alcohol sales. Although this restaurant has been in operation since 1997, the owner is now changing from a beer and wine license to a general alcohol license. • Said that a minor interior remodel is also proposed. This would include the removal of three tables and 12 seats in order to create a new bar area with seven bar seats. This results in an overall reduction of five seats. • Said that staff is recommending adoption of a resolution to allow a Conditional Use Permit to authorize general on-sale alcohol sales. • Explained that Frank Leamy, the applicant, could not be present this evening as today is his wedding anniversary. Chair Roseberry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Roseberry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Said that he has no issue with this request. • Pointed out that this restaurant is outside of the Downtown. It is a family-style restaurant. • Added that there are no issues with the Police Department. • Said if there are no further comments, he is willing to put forth a motion. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Resnikoff, seconded by Commissioner Reynolds, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4032 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2011-156) to allow general liquor sales and minor interior remodel in conjunction with an existing restaurant (Mama Mia's) Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 10 on property located at 200 E. Hamilton Avenue, subject to the conditions of approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alster, Brennan, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Ebner ABSTAIN: Gibbons Chair Roseberry advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar Days. *** Chair Roseberry read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows: 3. PLN2011-135 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Ashok Anumandla, A. Anumandla for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2011-135) to allow the construction of a private tennis court with a lighting system on asingle-family residential property located at 559 Kenneth Avenue in an R-1-10 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Assistant Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a tennis court on asingle-family residential property on Kenneth Avenue near Budd. • Identified the project site as a 12,700 square foot parcel in an R-1-10 Zoning District and within the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan area. • Described the tennis court as being 41 feet by 98 feet and 4,000 square feet in area. It will be located at the rear of the property alongside what is now a detached garage that will soon be demolished and replaced with a secondary living unit. • Said that the proposed lighting system consists of eight 15-foot high light standards. • Explained that staff did research on tennis court standards using the Zoning Code, General Plan, as well as standards from other cities. Issues studied included setbacks, lighting, noise and minimum lot sizes. • Said that there is not much in our Codes other than a requirement for Use Permits for courts within a residential zone. • Stated that the definition for a private court is one that is for the sole use of the property owner. It cannot be rented out or used for lessons. It should be compatible with the existing single family residence and maintain development patterns. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 11 • Said that those issues are not met by this application. The applicant proposes a three-foot setback. Typical building setbacks are 25 from the rear and 10 from the side. • Explained that the Zoning Code allows recreational facilities within these setbacks for pools, etc. The main intent for a setback is to help provide buffering. • Stated that staff has concerns over noise impacts including during play and through use of ball machines. Use of the court during the evenings, early mornings and/or weekends could become a noise nuisance for nearby neighbors. • Reported that the proposed mesh netting would be 15-feet high and as such would represent a Fence Exception. Staff is concerned about that height's impact on the neighbors and neighborhood at large since it would likely be visible from off the property. • Advised that the applicant is saying that these nets can be retracted but it could become a Code Enforcement issue in the future. • Said that the photometric plan provided shows that the proposed lighting would bleed out onto adjacent properties. • Said that the City's Lighting Design Standards requires the minimization of spillover onto adjacent properties. Staff is concerned that even if reduced, lighting for this tennis court would still be noticeable and intrusive glare could affect between three and five adjacent neighbors. Court lighting would allow the applicant to use the court later into the evening, which may become a nuisance to neighbors. • Added that the type of lighting used should be consistent and compatible with the neighborhood. Fifteen-foot lighting standards are more commercial than residential in nature. • Reported that the applicant is proposing to incorporate landscaping to help screen the support posts, including Italian Cypress. Staff believes said landscaping might take years to provide sufficient screening of this netting. • Said that staff did research existing private tennis courts within the City limits and found no issued Use Permits. Any existing likely pre-date the requirement for a use Permit. • Said that staff finds that a 12,700 square foot lot is too small to accommodate a court. This court consumes approximately one-third of the land mass. This lot is not large enough to support a tennis court. • Reiterated that noise, visual impacts and noise concerns force staff to recommend denial. • Added that if the Commission chooses to approve this request, two sets of draft conditions have been provided that condition a court without lighting or a court with lighting. Commissioner Alster presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this project on August 9, 2011. • Stated that concerns were raised about lighting, visual and noise impacts to nei Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 12 Commissioner Resnikoff reported that he had visited the site today and the family allowed him to access the backyard. He also spoke with neighbors. He asked for further input from the SARC meeting. Commissioner Alster said that the issues discussed by SARC included the visual impact of nets, lighting impacts and noise impacts. SARC was generally not agreeable. Chair Roseberry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Ashok Anumandla, Applicant: • Explained that his is not a regulation sized tennis court, which is 60 by 120 feet. • Said that he plans to play with his kids on evenings and weekends. • Said that the height of the poles is now 12 feet instead of 15. • Stated that lighting would be utilized only in winter. • Said that he has spoken to his neighbors and explained his plans. None of them objected. • Reported that he is planning on a rubberized court that will result in no noise. • Stated that he has devoted a year to research courts and available materials in order to limit the affect of his court on the community. • Reiterated that this court is just for fun. He is not a pro and is not teaching tennis. He and his son will use the court for a few hours in the evening and weekends to have some fun together. Commissioner Brennan asked about the proposed height of the net and whether Mr. Anumandla had considered not including netting. Mr. Ashok Anumandla: • Said that he has to make sure that balls don't go onto neighbors' properties. • Said that he is now proposing use of six posts instead of eight. • Added that he would only use the nets during play. • Assured that the netting would have minimal visibility and would help keep balls on site. Commissioner Brennan asked if the netting is really necessary. Mr. Ashok Anumandla: • Said that he can use this court without netting if necessary. • Reiterated that the netting is minimal. It is a curtain that would not be visible when pulled back. • Reminded that he would also plant Italian Cypress trees to help screen. • Assured that he does not want to disturb his neighbors. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 13 Commissioner Gibbons: • Pointed out that the plans under consideration incorporate eight poles and not six as mentioned this evening. The plans call for 15-foot height and not 12 as mentioned this evening. • Said that she would be willing to consider a reduction to six poles and height to 12 feet. • Added that the photometrics under those conditions would be different. Mr. Ashok Anumandla: • Said that lighting is not mandatory. He said he could compromise on the issue of lighting. • Added that even if lighting were to be approved by this Commission, he might actually wait to install them. He included lighting as part of this application due to the cost to file for a Use Permit and the desire to avoid duplicating that cost by having to come back later to add lighting. Commissioner Reynolds sought clarification that the proposal has been modified to reduce height from 15 to 12 feet and from 8 to 6 poles. Does that mean the maximum height for the netting would be 12 feet also? Mr. Ashok Anumandla replied yes. He added that he is open to any conditions of approval necessary. Commissioner Resnikoff asked Mr. Ashok Anumandla to verify that removing lighting is not a deal breaker as far as he is concerned. Mr. Ashok Anumandla said that he can be flexible. Lighting is not necessary if it represents a concern for the City and/or for his neighbors. He added that there are only two adjacent neighbors and he checked with both of them. Commissioner Resnikoff asked how tall the second building would be. Mr. Ashok Anumandla said that it would be a single-story building and would be taller than the poles. Commissioner Alster asked Mr. Ashok Anumandla to explain what he was told when he investigated installing a tennis court with City staff prior to purchasing his home. Mr. Ashok Anumandla said that he originally considered a sports court but later switched to a tennis court as his son's preference. He said that Daniel had advised him such a court would require issuance of a Use Permit. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan said that regarding the net curtain system, there may actually be a cable that is always in place even when the curtain itself has been pulled to one side when not in use. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 14 Ms. Lisa Toensfeldt, Resident on Sobrato Avenue: • Said that she has been in this neighborhood for 8 months. • Pointed out that for a previous item this evening (daycare), hours of operation and noise impacts were widely discussed. • Said that a similar discussion has not addressed hours of operation and noise impacts as they relate to this proposed tennis court. • Asked how enforcement of conditions for this use would be managed. Chair Roseberry said that the use of the court would be permitted from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. daily. Ms. Lisa Toensfeldt: • Said that 8 a.m. seems early for weekends when people tend to like to sleep in later. She recommended a later start time than 8 a.m. • Reiterated her question of enforcement of issues and how that works. Director Kirk Heinrichs: • Said that enforcement is complaint based. Added that enforcement is one reason staff felt it necessary to recommend denial. • Stated that once built, enforcement is difficult. Ms. Lisa Toensfeldt: • Stated that her opinion on the netting is that it is necessary to protect neighbors' properties and she understands why it is there. • Said that her concern is the lighting proposed and potential impacts from it as well as noise impacts. She is not concerned about visibility of netting. Ms. Rosemary Chivers, Resident on Kenneth: • Explained that she is the side adjacent neighbor. • Added that she has no problem with this proposed court. • Advised that this is a very nice family. They are low key and hardworking. • Said that the seven year old son loves tennis and is really into sports. • Said that she has no problem with approving this tennis court. • Stated that the proposed material is a rubberized clay-like surface, much like the Campbell Community Center track, which helps keep down noise. • Said that her neighbor has expanded a lot of energy in designing his court. Chair Roseberry verified with Ms. Chivers that she is the closest neighbor to the west side of Mr. Ashok Anumandla. Ms. Rosemary Chivers said that is correct. She added that she has an orchard nearest their shared property line and noise from this court will not interfere. Ms. Shermin Tobias, Resident on Sobrato, expressed concern about lighting impacts. Chair Roseberry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Gibbons: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 15 • Said that she had a lot of reservations before but this evening's discussion has been helpful. Added that it is helpful to learn that this is not a regulation sized court and that classes would not be taught there. • Said that the use of soft paving materials is good. Pointed out that the current plans under consideration do not consist of just six 12- foot poles but rather eight. • Suggested either coming back with more accurate updated plans or conditioning an approval appropriately to reflect the changes. Commissioner Alster: • Said that she is concerned about issues raised in the staff report including the use of a three-foot setback versus typical setbacks of 10 to 25 feet; the need for a fence exception to deal with the netting height; the need for Code Enforcement services if hours of use are not honored; and concerns over compliance by future owners should the property be sold. • Said that considerations of how this court fits in make sense in the staff report. • Added that even lowering the netting to 12 feet still could impact the neighbor's large bedroom window. Reminded that if problems crop up, neighbors would end up calling the City for Code Enforcement, which could be a can of worms. Commissioner Brennan: Admitted that his first gut reaction to this request was to let this owner do what he wants with his space. • Added that lighting was a concern and recommended that lighting not be included since the potential for problems with lighting is significant. That issue is taken off the table if lighting is eliminated. Stated that as for the Code Enforcement issue, imposing conditions of approval with any approval creates an enforcement power. This is no different from other Code Enforcement issues dealt with. While it might be tough to manage, noise issues are caused by common occurrences such as use of leaf blowers. • Said he would not shoot down this application although he understands staff's position. Reiterated that with the elimination of the lighting and lowering of the nets, he believes this would be okay. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Expressed his agreement with Commissioner Brennan's comments. • Said that noise impacts are reduced with the court's materials. The visual impacts are reduced with the fact the netting can be set aside when the court is not in use. • Reminded that there were a couple of letters against this proposal but it appears that the applicant has convinced those who were opposed to support his request. Agreed that a deed restriction can be filed. • Stated that a solution is to eliminate the lighting component and pointed out that the neighbor most affected is supportive of this court without lighting. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 16 Commissioner Reynolds: • Said that he had serious reservations although he also supports personal property rights. • Added he is concerned about neighbor impacts. • Supported the elimination of the lighting. • Agreed that use of a residential swimming pool could create similar types of noise impacts. • Supported project with elimination of lighting. Chair Roseberry: • Said that he thought this was a lot of expense to go through. • Clarified that the main issues under consideration are noise and lighting impacts. • Asked if someone is prepare do make a motion. Commissioner Brennan said there are two options, either a "no go" or a conditioned approval with mitigations. Chair Roseberry suggested that the provision of a photometrics report using six lights at a 12-foot height would have been beneficial to this applicant. He added that the applicant could come back at a later date and apply for the lights. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan said that the proposed tennis court surface material is not yet reflected in the conditions and should be added. Chair Roseberry asked if this material is clay. Planner Daniel Fama said that the material's brand name is Har-Tru (a clay surface) and is called out on page 2 of the staff report. Chair Roseberry re-opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Ashok Anumandla said that the proposed material does not make noise. This is a very well known material with low maintenance requirements. Chair Roseberry re-closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Resnikoff, seconded by Commissioner Gibbons, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4033 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2011-135) to allow the construction of a private tennis court on asingle-family residential property located at 559 Kenneth Avenue, subject to the conditions of approval, including: • The findings per Attachment #9; • The conditions outlined on Attachment #10 and not including lighting; • Use of Har-Tru materials for the court itself; Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 17 • Requiring the applicant to submit two installation schemes, one that consists of 8 poles and the other with 6 poles, for the review and approval of the Community Development Director; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Brennan, Gibbons, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Roseberry NOES: Alster ABSENT: Ebner ABSTAIN: None Chair Roseberry advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar Days. Commissioner Brennan congratulated Mr. Ashok Anumandla for his communication efforts with his neighbors. *** Commissioner Reynolds recused himself for Item No. 4 and left the dais and chamber. Chair Roseberry read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record as follows: 4. PLN2011-104 Public Hearing to consider the application of AT&T Mobility for a AT&T Mobility Conditional Use Permit (PLN2011-104) for modification and reinstatement of approval of an existing wireless telecommunications facility on property located at 2041 S. Winchester Boulevard in a P-D (Planned Development) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Project Planner: Daniel Fama, Assistant Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the project site is on Winchester, south of Campbell Avenue, which is the Merrill Gardens project site. This is a P-D Zone with a Central Commercial Land Use designation. • Said the antennas are located on the northwest corner of this development site, near Building D. The project includes the relocation of ground equipment. The pole is located five feet away from the building wall, adjacent to an Alzheimer's secured courtyard. • Advised that the request would increase the existing six antennas up to 12 antennas. The height of the tree is not modified. The existing building is 36 feet high. • Said that given the proximity of the tree to the building, branches may have to be tempered back so as not to hit the building. • Said that this expansion is to serve AT&T's 4G-ALTE project for wireless data. • Stated that a coverage map, including this site, has been provided. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 18 • Explained that staff had brought up the possibility of integrating the antennas into the site by bringing the antennas into the building of the new development. In response to that suggestion, the applicant provided a letter outlining the technical and financial impacts of doing so. • Recommended a resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to modify and extend the approval of this facility. • Added that if the Commission chooses to go this way, the existing monopine would have to be re-identified as a monopalm in the proposed conditions of approval. Commissioner Gibbons asked why the installation could not be incorporated into the building. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan replied cost. The applicant would have to re- engineer the building to accommodate the weight. The rear building does not have enough height to work although the front building is taller and might work. Commissioner Alster presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this proposal at its meeting of July 26, 2011. • Said that SARC concurred with staff and asked the applicant to investigate integration into the tower element of the new building. • Said that the alternate proposed palm tree design would also better integrate into the site. Chair Roseberry opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr. Matthew Yergovich, Applicant for AT&T Mobility: Thanked staff. • Advised that AT&T Mobility is opposed to the staff recommendation to transport this site into a monopalm. • Added that this recommendation from staff was a surprise that was never discussed. They were unaware of this suggestion until the staff report for this meeting was received on Friday. • Said that if thoroughly examined, that recommendation would never have been made. • Said that it would be an enormous task to transfer the existing monopine into a monopalm. He equated it to being asked to turn an existing brick building into a steel building. It would require tearing down the entire existing site and rebuilding it, which would be an approximately $300,000 project. Their current estimated cost as they have proposed is $20,000. • Said that they are willing to offer to rebranch the existing monopine at a cost of approximately $50,000. • Said that other detriments of a monopalm would be the fact this location would be "off air" for approximately 45 days and require the use of a temporary cell on wheels (COW) that perhaps could not be accommodated here. • Said the transformation from monopine to monopalm represents an immense project that would effectively kill this project. There is no guarantee that a Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 19 monopalm would look any better than the monopine. There is less concealment of antennas themselves with a palm versus pine. • Added that this site is hardly visible to the public and will be less visible when the redevelopment of the site is complete. • Said that this change would tax AT&T's ability to update this site and kill this project, which he does not want to see happen. • Stated that the property owners are the only ones to see this on site. They are in strong support. • Reminded that there has been no opposition to this project. One complaint was received about work that was done at night, which was regrettable. • Added that they can clean up the site to cover up any wires or coaxes. • Advised that the property owner is too far along in their plan review to incorporate this into their project. • Asked that they be allowed to keep their monopine as it is with the added antennas requested. Commissioner Brennan asked what is the value that is added by rebranching this monopine. Mr. Matthew Yergovich: • Said it is not cheap to do a rebranching. It costs approximately $40,000 to rebranch and makes the total project cost out at about $50,000 versus the proposed project cost of approximately $15,000 to upgrade as they have proposed. • Said that AT&T's offer to rebranch this site is a good offer. Commissioner Brennan asked what rebranching means? Are the branches any longer? Are the antennas hidden any better? Are there more branches? What is the value of rebranding aesthetically? Mr. Matthew Yergovich: • Said that there is a branch length threshold. • Added that the branches are welded to the pole itself. • Said that to rebranch they have to go up the pole and remove the existing branches and add more. This pole is structurally capable of holding more branches than it currently does and would look thicker. • Stated that socks cover the antennas themselves and some appear to be missing. Commissioner Gibbons: • Said that there are several tree antennas in Campbell including one pretty nice one on San Tomas Expressway. • Clarified that the rebranching would make this monopine denser but would not extend the branches out any further. Mr. Matthew Yergovich: • Said that the mounts are not any longer from pole to the antenna bracket itself. • Added that there is a 10-foot wingspan where now the span is approximately four feet across. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 20 Commissioner Gibbons: • Said that some tree poles are a challenge. • Pointed out that real redwood trees don't get thicker at the top but rather they get thinner. It is a harder aesthetic. • Added that staff is concerned about the proximity of the building to this tree. Asked how much this pole would sway in the wind. Mr. Matthew Yergovich replied not much. They are designed to be structurally sound. Commissioner Gibbons: • Expressed concern about the minimal five foot setback between tree and building. • Added that the monopalm solution is not a good one for her. • Said that her question remains why not place six additional antennas within the pending new building. Mr. Matthew Yergovich: • Said that it is a building issue that they have evaluated. • Reminded that the project plans are deep into plan check and the owner would have to redesign structural features of their building to accommodate these antennas. • Added that Merrill Garden's land use approval is already done. Again, they would have to redesign their building to accommodate these antennas. • Said that this cell site is in the heart of Campbell and feeds both Downtown and City Hall. Commissioner Gibbons asked whether the potential AT&T merger with T-Mobile might render this site redundant. Mr. Matthew Yergovich explained that the FCC evaluates the market when a merger occurs and sometimes sites must be divested. Chair Roseberry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Chair Roseberry: • Stated that he has no sympathy for AT&T's burden or cost. • Reminded that this property gets money for allowing antennas on its site. • Said that he sees a couple of legitimate concerns. One is the proximity of the antennas to the building itself. The other is the value added. • Added that this Commission is here to look out for the people of Campbell. • Stated that no one out there thinks that these poles look like real trees. • Admitted that he had never noticed this one before. • Said that the Commission looks at how this tree works for and within the City and the development. • Pointed out that while this development may already have an approved project, it is unlikely that a complete redesign would be necessary in order to include these antennas within the building itself. Pa e 21 Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 g Commissioner Gibbons said that she is not supportive of this application due to the amount of stuff that would be located at the top of this tree, which defeats the use of a monopine. Commissioner Resnikoff: Agreed that a decision is not based on cost. Stated that he too had never noticed this monopine before. Said that he has no issue with the proposed design. Commissioner Brennan asked if the other stealth poles in Campbell have six antennas or 12. Chair Roseberry said that the technology is changing towards larger arrays. What is proposed here is two times as many or double the existing array. Commissioner Brennan asked if 12 antennas on a monopine would ever be found acceptable. Commissioner Gibbons said she was not suditiona hantennas are aldded t Sthe tope that she has seen a stealth tree. When ad balloons out and looks weird. Commissioner Alster asked how tall the tower elements for the Merrill Gardens building will be. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan said that the conversation dealt with the back building, which is 36 feet high. The front building has elements at 46 feet in height. Per the applicant, their installation would be greatly affected by a reduction in height. Chair Roseberry reminded that this is an AT&T application and not a Merrill Gardens application. They are seeking approval to add components at a 50-foot level. Commissioner Gibbons asked if there is not a 46 foot maximum height limit. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan saidh~ oft45 feet e Winchester Master Plan, they cannot be higher than the maximum heig Planner Daniel Fama clarified that the standard for a PD zoned property such as this one is a maximum height of 75 feet. Commissioner Resnikoff said that Merrill Gardens is a red herring. This installation cannot be dictated by the City to be added to this building. The applicant would have to approach Merrill Gardens to investigate that option. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Resnikoff, seconded by Commissioner Brennan, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4034 approving a Conditional Use Permit Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for August 23, 2011 Page 22 (PLN2011-104) for modification and reinstatement of approval of an existing wireless telecommunications facility on property located at 2041 S. Winchester Boulevard, subject to the conditions of approval as modified: • Modify conditions 2 and 3 to reflect the monopine design; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Brennan, Resnikoff and Roseberry NOES: Alster and Gibbons ABSENT: Ebner ABSTAIN: Reynolds Chair Roseberry advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar Days. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Director Kirk Heinrichs added the following updates to the written report: • Advised that a Special Council Meeting would be held on August 30th to conduct interviews with applicants seeking appointment to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 27, 2011 (the meeting of September 13, 2011, has been cancelled. SUBMITTED BY: (./ V Corinne Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ~v~~ Bob Roseberry, C it ATTEST: Kirk einri Secretary