Loading...
PC Mins 11/08/2011CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission meeting of November 8, 22011, 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, tb wit: NOVEMBER 8, 201'1 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Bob Roseberry Theresa Alster Brian Brennan Mark Ebner Paul Resnikoff Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner: Community Development Director: Planning Manager: Assistant Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Elizabeth Gibbons Kirk Heinrichs Paul Kermoyan Daniel Fama William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Resnikoff, the Plajnning Commission minutes of the meeting of October 25, 2p11, were approved. (6-0-1; Commissioner Gibbons was absent) Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2011 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS 1. Two items regarding Agenda Item No. 1 (Neighbor letter and applicant shade drawings). 2. One letter from applicant for Item No. 2. 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: 1. PLN2011-227 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Steve Nelson Nelson, S. for a Site and Architectural review Permit (PLN2011-227) to modify the required side yard setback to allow atwo-story addition to an existing two-story residence located at 1370 E. Campbell Avenue in an R~1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exermpt under CEQA. Planning Commission action final unle$s 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 located at 137!0 E. Campbell Avenue, between Midway and Peter Drive. The site is Zoned R-1-~ and contains a 2,600 square foot two-story residence with a detached two-car garage. • Added that the proposed addition is located on the southeast corner along the existing six-foot building line setback whereas ~ nine-foot setback is required by Code. • Described the proposed addition as consisting of a hip roof that ties it to the existing gable and results in an 18-foot high gable wall. Adding that an 18-foot building height is measured from the ground to the second story plate and would require anine-foot setback requirement rather thin the existing six-foot setback. • Said that staff looked at the required findings for a modification to a side yard setback. The finding must be made that a reduction in setback would not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the community/adjacent properties. Issues such as height, massing, placement of windows in relation to adjacent uses are taken into consideration. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2011 Page 3 • Added this proposal was considered of limited scope with the addition of 120 square feet on the upper floor, the push out of the rear wall by seven feet, the minimal addition of windows. • Recommended that the Commission adopt a resolution approving this Site and Architectural Review Permit. • Reported that the adjacent neighbor has additional information to provide regarding his concern over impacts from this addition on ~ unique side patio feature on his home. He will make a presentation and the applicant will provide a response as well. Commissioner Brennan asked staff to elaborate on how it evaluates a request against required findings as far as "unreasonable" impacts since that is such a subjective matter. Planner Daniel Fama advised that what is evaluated is the benefit of the request against any potential impacts that might impede someone else. He agreed that the evaluation of "unreasonableness" is somewhat subjective. Commissioner Alster presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this application at its meeting of dctober 11, 2011. • Advised that SARC was supportive as presented.' Chair Roseberry opened the Public Hearing for Agenlda Item No. 1. Mr. Darren Egan, Resident on E. Campbell Avenue: • Advised that he is the adjacent property owner. • Said he wanted to share the concerns he and his mother have and that they hope the Commissioners have seen their submitted lever. • Reported that he is opposed to this permit request and is asking for denial or, if approved, that the addition utilize normal required setbacks. • Added that he is happy that this property has begin sold as it had been vacant. He also said he can understand why they're doing thus remodel. • Stated his desire to preserve the sunlight on his property. • Pointed out that per the Municipal Code, modifications to Code standards must not result in unreasonable interference with sunlight end enjoyment of property. That is his concern that this addition will adversely affect their sunlight. • Added that the primary concern is with the impacts in relation to an interior patio feature of their home that is a unique and unwsual feature. It is a 7 x 9 foot recessed patio that provides lighting to the inside of the home including the dining room, which has no direct light except from this enclosed patio through a large window that separates the patio from the dining room. • Explained that 71 percent of the glass for their rtooms (or 470 square feet and 20 percent of their home) comes through this enclosed patio feature. The only other windows are front facing. • Reiterated that this addition will adversely impact their access to sunlight and air. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2011 Page 4 • Added that 67 percent of the existing open element of their window (sliding door) is impacted as is interference with a bedroom windoww. • Said that a secondary concern is potential impactr; on existing jasmine plant screen that was installed to help block sound. They don't want a change in available sunlight to impair their continued growth and health. • Stressed the importance of sunlight throughout their home that is generated by the enclosed patio. He stated that they get a lot of light through there. • Summed up that a setback modification is not justified as it would adversely impact their use and enjoyment of their property. • Thanked the Commission and Planner Daniel Fart~a for their consideration. • Pointed out that the shadow study may be of questionable value since they did not see potential impacts from their side. He added that they were not consulted about this project. • Reiterated that they are happy to see this homQ modified and updated and their only concern is use of a reduced side yard setbaa'k. Commissioner Alster asked Mr. Darren Egan if he hid any suggestions of what might be acceptable to him. Mr. Darren Egan said he really is only concerned with any reduction of required setback. He said he has no other problems with thi$ addition. He added that there is slight concern regarding placement of new bedroom windows but that is not a big problem. He is open to everything else. Mr. Steve Nelson, Project Designer: • Extended his apologies for not having met with the neighbors. • Explained that he and his clients had not been avuare of this unique porch feature. • Added that he has recently done additional reslearch, calculations and prepared additional drawings depicting the two worst posslible conditions in regards to solar impacts, which include the winter solstice and the summer solstice. In winter, there would be no impacts. The worst case, in June (during the summer solstice) the solar drawing shows potential shadow impacts. The shadow on the neighbor's residence is only six-feet at its maximum and is reduced as the season continues. • Suggested that he could cut the eave back six inches from the overhang but that might not be too compatible with the existing architecture. It will still cast an approximately four-foot shadow but again only fon a few months of the year. • Added that the criteria he used to develop his shade study was derived from an accepted and commonly used resource. Commissioner Ebner clarified with Mr. Steve Nelson that he is willing to trim the eave back by six inches. Mr. Steve Nelson said that such a reduction will prpvide two feet more of sunlight to the neighbors. It would not be a problem to make that change to the design. Chair Roseberry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for Novembier 8, 2011 Page 5 Commissioner Brennan asked staff how overhangs relate as far as setbacks. Director Kirk Heinrichs said that eaves are allowed to encroach into setbacks. Commissioner Brennan: • Reported that he went to the site. • Agreed with Mr. Egan's claim that they rely on light generated from their enclosed porch. • Said that the question raised is what impact can bie found to be unreasonable. • Pointed out that this is a pretty big wall right next tlo this porch. • Stated that, on the other hand, even with anine-fpot setback this will be a pretty big wall and that setback falls within Code standards.'. • Expressed concern about the lack of consultation with the neighbor. Commissioner Alster: • Said that SARC received no input from the neighbors. • Agreed that the design of the neighbor's home is every unusual and that the addition appears to encroach on a bedroom window, which she personally would find to be a problem. • Said that it is hard to understand the difference with four feet less sunlight as depicted on the shadow study. • Said she is not completely convinced either way but understands the neighbor's concern. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Said that he is on the fence here. • Added that there appear to be reasonable issues ion both sides. • Said that anine-foot setback would be allowed' per Code but asix-foot setback could make a significant difference. • Stated that per Designer Steve Nelson, it is possible to move the eave back which reduces the shade impact/loss of light back from ~-foot and 4 inches to 4-foot and 4 inches. • Said that the neighbor has a nice patio albeit an odd shape. A loss of sunlight kills the purpose of that patio. • Said that it might be more reasonable with the reduction of the eave and there may be more tweaks that can be done. Commissioner Reynolds: • Reported that he sat in on the SARC meeting ar~d thought this was a great project but there was no input from the neighbor • Expressed support for Designer Steve Nelson's compromise to reduce the eave. Chair Roseberry: • Reported that while he didn't speak to the neighbors he did drive by the site. This is a pretty nice neighborhood. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2011 Page 6 • Reminded that SARC tries to encourage applicants to do some outreach to neighbors in advance. It is an important element and such contact could have defused some of this concern. That didn't happerh here but the applicant should not be penalized for not doing so since such outreach is not required but recommended. • Said that when he originally reviewed this project, he thought it would be nice to have a shadow study to evaluate. • Added that he thinks the shadow study provided by Mr. Nelson was properly prepared and took extreme conditions into considleration in the preparation. • Said that he tends not to like reduced setbacks but is not too opposed to this request. • Agreed that there is the question of balancing thy, neighbor's reasonable enjoyment of his property but this does not appear to represent an unreasonable impact. • Stated that the one neighbor's concern must bei balanced with this homeowner's right to improve his house. • Said that he would vote for approval as proposed but could also support a reasonable compromise. Commissioner Brennan asked if the adjacent nei;~hbor should be called back to respond to the proposed compromise offered. Chair Roseberry said it was really not necessary tq reopen the public hearing since that neighbor's position has been clearly provided and it is now time for this Commission to make a decision. Commissioner Ebner: • Stated he remembered his time on SARC wherei they would encourage applicants to consult with neighbors. • Added that he is encouraged by the applicant's gompromise offered in response to the neighbor's concern. • Reminded that this addition is located at the backs of the house. • Stated that he would support this request with the compromise. • Suggested that in future applicants be encouraged to approach their neighbors well in advance of a public hearing. Commissioner Resnikoff said that while he would ''~,be uncomfortable supporting this application without a compromise, he can be supportlive with the reduction of the eave. Motion: Upon motion of Commissionier Resnikoff, seconded by Commissioner Ebner, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4039 approving a' Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2011-227) to modify thMe required side yard setback to allow atwo-story addition to am existing two-story residence located at 1370 E. Campbell Aveniue, with the added condition to reduce the second story eave by six inches, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Brennan, Ebner, Reslnikoff, Reynolds and Roseberry Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for Novembier 8, 2011 Page 7 NOES: Alster ABSENT: Gibbons 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: 2. PLN2011-223 Public Hearing to consider the application of AMCOE Sign AMCOE Sign Company on behalf of After Hlours Healthcare for a Sign Permit Company (PLN2011-223) to allow an increase in sign area for a new monument sign on an existing commercial property located at 14651 S. Bascom Avenue'' in a P-O (Professional Office) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exerlnpt 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 applicant is seeking approval o~ a Sign Permit for a medical office center located at Bascom Avenue at Mozart Averjue. • Said that the site contains two medical office buildings equaling 62,000 square feet. The site was annexed into Campbell from County) jurisdiction in 2006. • Described the sign requested as a 25 square Moot sign that is four-feet tall and internally lit that identifies After Hours Urgent Cai•e Clinic and is located seven feet behind the sidewalk at the corner of Mozart and E}ascom Avenues. • Explained that there are two 50-square-foot monlument signs serving the site for a total of 100 square feet in sign area. The Sign CJrdinance allows office centers up to 80 square feet of sign area but this site's signage was granted while under County regulations. • Continued that 80 square feet is the maximum sign area allowed per parcel or per center, whichever is less. The project site consists of two parcels under the same ownership utilizing shared parking and a comrr~on site access (driveway). This request was reviewed as a single site that has ark 80 square foot signage limitation. Again, the two existing signs already exceed the allowed 80 square feet. Staff is unable to approve beyond that amount, which i$ what brought the request to the Planning Commission for consideration of an incr~ase in sign area. • Advised that there are necessary findings that rrnust be made in order to allow an excess of allowable signage. • Said that upon staff's review of this application, no unusual conditions were discovered including obstructions. This site is easily visible and alternatives for adequate signage are possible. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for Novemf~er 8, 2011 Page 8 • Suggested that the existing signs be modified to~, allow space for this tenant or the signs may need to be replaced and redesigned 5o as not to exceed the allowable 80 square feet. • Recommended denial Commissioner Alster presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: • SARC reviewed this project at its meeting of Octolber 11, 2011. • Reminded that both sites of this center have the dame ownership. • Advised that while SARC was sympathetic to tf1~e applicant's need for identifying signage the SARC members were unable to foNvard a recommendation on to the Planning Commission. • Added that SARC was however somewhat supportive of adding signage for this use in order to provide service to the community. Chair Roseberry opened the Public Hearing for Agenlda Item No. 2. Dr. Richard Adrouny, Applicant: & Business Owner: • Explained that he is the founder and medical director of this urgent care clinic and is a physician with 25 years experience as a cancjer specialist. • Said that he saw the need for such a facility as patients often don't know where to go except to the emergency room for care after hours. Emergency rooms are much more expensive than urgent care clinics. • Reported that they served 5,000 patients during their first year at this location. Coming to their clinic takes a fraction of both time and cost of an emergency room visit. Compared the cost of a visit for a sprained!, ankle as approximately $1,250 at an emergency room and $292 at their urgent card facility. • Said that the current lack of identifying signage for this new facility causes confusion to their patients. • Advised that he has negotiated with his landlord end will secure the modification on the existing sign but also feels that another sign) is required on the Mozart side of the building since many patients come from the direction of Highway 85. It is difficult to see the existing sign when coming frorr~ that direction. • Pointed out that corner locations sometimes' get monument signs on both frontages. • Stated that their objective is to serve the people. Commissioner Ebner: • Said that he is confused about this proposed sigrj that reads, "Walk-In Urgent Care No Emergency Services." • Questioned what occurs if someone shows up at phis clinic with a medical condition that is more than urgent. Can they be served herd? Dr. Richard Adrouny replied no. That person would be redirected to an emergency room. He said that this clinic is for urgent care bud not emergency care. So many people utilize emergency rooms for treatments that ire classified more as urgent care issues. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for Novemta'er 8, 2011 Page 9 Commissioner Resnikoff asked Dr. Richard Adrouny This hours of operation. Dr. Richard Adrouny said they are open from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., weekdays, and from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. Commissioner Resnikoff asked about proposed modifications to the existing signs. Dr. Richard Adrouny said that the landlord will inert their name onto the existing monument sign. Commissioner Brennan asked Dr. Richard Adroun~r if he agrees with the landlord's plan to offer sign area equivalent to the other uses orn site. Dr. Richard Adrouny replied yes. Commissioner Brennan asked Dr. Richard Adrouny if he doesn't find that existing sign area provided to be quite small for visibility while driving by. Dr. Richard Adrouny said that he might receive sign',space that is perhaps bigger than seen now. Commissioner Reynolds asked about the other busirhesses on site. Is the provision of signage a part of their respective rental agreement? Would there need to be some renegotiation by the landlord with the other tenants tcj change the division of sign area? Dr. Richard Adrouny said he did not think so. Commissioner Reynolds said he thought that existing lease agreements might include allocated space on that monument sign and is curious if that is the case. Chair Roseberry asked Dr. Richard Adrouny which building his clinic occupies. Dr. Richard Adrouny said the building he occupies frgnts on Mozart. Commissioner Ebner asked Dr. Richard Adrouny uvhat advertising he does for this clinic other than the identifying signage. Dr. Richard Adrouny said that he does Google ads amd has two billboards. Commissioner Ebner asked Dr. Richard Adrouny if me also has a following of patients who have already used the services of this clinic. Dr. Richard Adrouny replied yes, there are a sma~l number of repeat users of this urgent care clinic. Chair Roseberry closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for Novemfa',er 8, 2011 Page 10 Commissioner Alster: • Recounted that from personal experience shed has found difficulty in locating specific medical offices/services along Samaritan Drive. • Suggested that it would be better for the communlity to have signs that can be seen. A little sign is not enough. • Added that a sign in good taste will serve the community and provide visibility for patients trying to find this urgent care clinic. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Said he has mixed feelings about this sign request. • Said that he believes in balancing the premise'' of honoring the Sign Ordinance versus doing what is right. • Suggested that an additional sign would not adversely affect neighbors and would be of benefit to the public. • Said that he did not think that the three alternatives suggested to this request would work. Having a little sign with this business n~'me on a monument sign already identifying many other physicians or services world not help anyone find this urgent care clinic and neither would relocating the existing monument signs. • Said he is tending toward supporting this request., • Asked staff if it would be possible to condition tlhe hours that this new monument sign would be illuminated to just operational hour. • Said that since the Use Permit runs with the land, would it be possible to add a condition that if this clinic vacates the site and a different use takes over the tenant space, could this sign approval specific to this urgent care clinic be revoked. Director Kirk Heinrichs pointed out that this application is not for a Use Permit but rather for a sign exception to allow additional sign area. He added that signs for medical or urgent care uses are not evaluated differ~'ntly than other types of uses. The City cannot restrict approved signs for a site simply fir medical uses. City Attorney William Seligmann agreed that it is difficult to restrict signage to a specific type of use. He added that the issue to support a si n exception is the visibility of the signage and site from the public right-of-way. Tha~issue does not differ depending upon the type of use in place. He said he doubted) that such a position for approval would be enforceable. Commissioner Resnikoff asked if the hours the sign could be illuminated could be enforced. ' City Attorney William Seligmann replied yes. Commissioner Resnikoff said he is leaning toward i,approving this sign for a medical facility. Commissioner Ebner asked staff if this approval would set precedent. Director Kirk Heinrichs: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for Novembler 8, 2011 Page 11 • Advised that any Sign Exception somewhat sets ~recedent for future requests. • Added that an update to the Sign Ordinance is qn the department's work plan and while staff may get to that task before July, it alto may have to be folded into the next fiscal year's work plan due to some late additions that have redirected staffing resources. • Said that Sign Exceptions have been approved inj the past. • Advised that staff had a hard time supporting ikhis particular request for several reasons including the size of the property and the belief that acceptable signage could be accomplished within the 80 square fgot maximum signage allowed by redesigning the existing signs. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan: • Stated that this is a unique property. It's got a comer. • Agreed that one size does not always fit all in r~',gards to allowable signage. The Sign Ordinance is always tough. • Said that the problem with this site is that the e~Qisting signs are awful and hard to read due to a lack of contrast between the backgrlound color and lettering color. • Suggested that what is needed is large addre~s numbers on the building itself. Currently, the address number cannot be read wf~en driving by. • Added that the doctors at this location are kiddinjg themselves if they think anyone can read their name on this sign from the street', and/or that this identification is in anyway advertising their presence on site. Commissioner Ebner: • Said he tends to agree that these existing signs ~'re useless as far as visibility when driving by. • Said he loves the idea of large address numbers ~t the corner of the buildings. • Recounted that he can remember past emergencies when his now adult children were still young and agreed that provision of a gopd sign that helps locate this clinic easily is important. • Suggested the signs on site be completely redesigned. • Said he is not opposed to this doctor having a sign as it is a unique use but what is needed is a directional sign and not an advertising sign. Commissioner Brennan: • Said that he is of mixed mind set as well regarding this request. • Stated that he too has experienced the drive along Samaritan Drive looking for a specific address. • Said that the sign as proposed is worse as far ~s visibility coming from the other direction because of the way it's angled. • Pointed out that this need for identifying signagewas foreseeable by this applicant and his landlord as necessary. That foresee agility changes the game a little bit and the applicant and his landlord need to work it',out. • Suggested that granting an exception to the $ign Ordinance simply gives the landlord a pass. • Reiterated that the foresee ability of necessary signage makes a difference. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for Novemk~er 8, 2011 Page 12 Commissioner Reynolds: • Expressed confusion about the fact there are twq parcels and asked for verification as to whether there are two owners or the sam$ owner for both. If there are two owners that would allow for 80 square feet of sigr~age per site. • Said since it has been clarified per the staff report that this is one project site, he leans toward denial of this request and requiring I,the applicant to go back and work with his landlord to secure adequate signage. The existing signs are poorly designed. • Stated that he questions the placement of the proposed new sign. It might work great when coming from Highway 85 but would'', provide limited visibility for those potential patients traveling southbound on Bascorin Avenue. • Agreed that this use is good for the community. I~ is a good business. • Concluded that this request is not providing a proffer use of signage for the site. Commissioner Resnikoff: • Agreed that the existing signs are inefficient for thjis site. • Said that what is before this Commission is a s~ecific request from this applicant and should be considered since alterations to t e existing signs may or may not happen. • Suggested that this request be taken as is or not ~t all. Commissioner Ebner: • Said he is troubled by this request. • Stated that granting exceptions can cause a snowball effect and gave as an example the issue of readerboard signs once one was approved. • Suggested that the Sign Ordinance be adhered td. • Agreed that this is a great use but that people ray not understand the difference between urgent care situations and those issues requiring emergency room care. Commissioner Brennan asked staff when the Sign Ordinance would be updated. Director Kirk Heinrichs said that it may still occur wjithin this fiscal year but may also end up pushed into the next fiscal year. Chair Roseberry: • Reiterated that the action under consideration tgday is whether or not to approve this particular sign request. • Added that if this site were considered two parcels instead of just one, each parcel would be allowed one sign with a maximum of 80 !,square feet. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan: • Explained that staff carefully evaluated whether this site is truly functioning as a center. It was built as one center. It shares ode parking lot. There is just one owner. This meets the definition of a center. Agreed that if it were not a single center but rathler two separately functioning lots, each property would be allowed 50 square feet df sign area. Currently 40 square feet per lot is allowed for a total of 80 square feet {~f sign area for this center. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2011 Page 13 i Chair Roseberry reminded that the lots share a corl~mon driveway that serves as the only entrance and exit to the property. Planning Manager Paul Kermoyan reminded that it' is not uncommon for commercial centers to be comprised of several individual lots I as is Pruneyard that consists of several parcels. Chair Roseberry said that whether or not the Commission approves this sign, he hopes the applicant goes back to his landlord to try and came up with something better that goes with the site. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Brennan, seconded by Commissioner Reynolds, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4040 denying a (Sign Permit (PLN2011-223) to allow an increase in sign area folr a new monument sign on an existing commercial property Ipcated at 14651 S. Bascom Avenue, by the following roll call vjote: AYES: Brennan, Ebner, Reyldolds and Roseberry NOES: Alster and Resnikoff ABSENT: Gibbons ABSTAIN: None Chair Roseberry advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Director Kirk Heinrichs had nothing to add to his written report. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at' 8:47 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 22, 2011,1. SUBMITTED BY: or a Shinn, Recording Secre ary APPROVED BY: ATTEST: ~~1~ _ 2~ ~ ~~ _ . Bob Roseberry r Kirk ,Secretary