Fence Exception - 2004March 30, 2004
Ms. Jill Zahner
1252 Ridgeley Drive
Campbell, CA 95008
Re:
Fence Exception Application
File No.: PLN2004-00013
1252 Ridgeley Drive
Dear Ms. Zahner,
Thank you for your submittal of a Fence Exception Application for a fence exception on
property located at 1252 Ridgeley Drive. The Fence Exception provides for a six-foot tall fence
along the street side (eastern) property lines where a 15-foot side yard setback ~s required and a
seven-foot tall fence along the rear (southern) property lines where a six-foot fence is allowed.
The Community Development Director, upon recommendation from the Public Works Director,
has determined that the requested Fence Exception:
1. Will not impair vehicular or pedestrian safety;
2. Will result in a more desirable site layout from a maintenance and use standpoint;
3. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general
welfare of the City; and
4. Will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.
Therefore, your request for a Fence Exception has been approved. The Fence Exception is
granted for the street side (eastern) and rear (southern) property lines, subject to the following
conditions of approval:
1. The applicant shall obtain any necessary building permits from the Campbell Building
Division prior to installation of the fences.
2. The street side fence shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. The approved design consists
of a six (6) foot high board on board "good neighbor" wood fence. The street side fence
shall step down along the eastern property line beginning at 30 feet from the front
property line. The strèet side fence shall not exceed a height of 42 inches within the
thirty-foot triangular area.
70 North First Street. Campbell, California 95008-1436 . TEL 408.866.1140 . FAX 408.871.5140 . TOD 408.866.1790
PLN2004-00013 -1252 Riú,.. .ev Drive
Pafle 2 of 2
3. The rear fence shall not exceed six (6) feet in height from the street side property line for
a distance of ten feet and then shall step up to a fence that shall not exceed seven (7) feet
in height for the remainder of the rear property line. The approved design consists of a
six (6) foot high and seven (7) foot high board on board "good neighbor" wood fence.
4. The fences shall be contained entirely within the property lines and shall not encroach
onto adjacent properties or the public right-of-way.
Please feel free to contact me at (408) 866-2142 if you have any questions regarding this
approval.
Sincerely,
'. /11 f¡ , , ,;¡~ VI!~
~ff.~ems
Planner I
enc1:
Stamped Approved Plans
cc:
GeoffBradley, Senior Planner
Jill A. Zahner
1252 Ridgeley Drive
Campbell, CA 95008
TL: 40B/371-1432 (h) TL:650¡496-1262(w)
EM: iill.zahnerfcùdnax.org
26 March 2004
To:
Melinda Denis
Planning Department
~Jill Zahner
FAX: 408/871-5140
Pgs: 3 (inclusive)
Fr:
RE:
Fence Setback Application - 1252IUdgeley Drive
Fne *PLN2004-O0013
Melinda.
Whew! I'm at the end of my energy over procuring the appropriate letters for my
fence application, but here they are (attached). With all due respect for their neighborly
concern, 1 was essentially held hostage for the letter from 1276 Ridgeley Drive in exchange
for having to get 180 Midway approval. As part of this, 1 was asked to give a detailed 'walk-
through' of my property to this group of neighbors, with all the opinions that one might
expect in such a scenario. It was much like a public hearing, without the reCOUrse such an
ordinance normally provides. The neighbors at 180 Midway-the least involved by civic
expectations-were truly wonderful people. They were very supportive and helpful.
Nevertheless, a situation was set up where the required contributors (1276 Ridgeley & 181
Midway) expected me to secure written approval from 180 Midway before granting me their
own.
One thing I would volunteer at this point that may be useful in the future: The City's
e:Kpectation of consent from 1276 Ridgeley may not have been realistic, given that we did
not even share a property line. That neighbor considered as a threat my question as to
whethe,' her required opinion would subject her to the Good Neighbor fence payment policy.
This situation of the City's expectations, in combination with her refusal to see how she
should be expected to pay, created a very volatile situation for me, wherein I was held
hostage by a person who had the authority to stop my project dead, without the attendant
responsibility of having to pay for that right. What I am suggesting, with all goodwill. is
that the City may want to give some thought to the difficulties that are set up in a
circumstance such as mine: property line was NOT shared~ therefore, what are the civic
responsibilities that flow from that reality, and should it not be clarified to all parties by the
City? As you know from a cc to you dated 2 Mw-ch, I made it clear on paper to Ms.
Lauderdale that I did not expect her to pay, which was a step I Celt induced to take not only
because I myself did not see the logical necessity for her involvement given the lack of
shared property line, but also because without assuaging her ire on the matter, J might not
get the required letter. I understand the City's desire to attempt consensus for the good of
the community, but in my case, good intentions backfired.
You've been a saint throughout this whole process, Melinda; I truly appreciate your
patience. I hope that you will put forward for discussion in your next planning meeting the
fallout I experienced in having authority and responsibility so divided here. Perhaps other
homeowners sharing a similar dilemma may profit from any consideration the Department
might give to the matter, ~
City of Campbell Planning Department
Patricia Lauderdale, 1276 Ridgeley Drive
RE:
Fence Exception - Setback
Jill A. Zahner
1252 Ridgeley Drive
~ 002/003
I understand that Jill Zahner has submitted a Fence Exception Application for a set-
back exception to the current zoning code. I have carefully reviewed with Jill her plans for
. building a new fence and am in agreement with the plans she has set forth in terms of fence
quality, height, pla;!",cnt and design. I hereby give my approval of her project.
V5~t??z,~
g>atû~ ~~L/
Patricia Lauderdale
~ .::< 0. ~ f!? '7
Date '
RECEIVED
MAR 2 6 2004
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPT.
City of Campbell Planning Department
FR: ,Jo Cooper & Bob Crowley, 180 Midway Avenue
RE:
Fence Exception - Setback
Jill A. Zahner
1252 Ridgeley Drive
We understand that Jill Zahner has submitted a Fence Exception Application for a set-
back exception to the current zoning code. We have carefully reviewed with Jill her plans for
building a new fence and are in agreement with the plans she has set forth in terms of fence
quality, height, placement and design. We hereby give our approval of her project.
Date
Dare 5)0/0;,
:/2-0/0 c¡
RECEIVED
MAR 2 6 2004
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPT.
03/08/2004 08:44 FAX 650 486 120~
DNAX MAIN FAX
~001/001
Jill A. Zahner
1252 Ridgeley Drive
Campbell, CA 95008
TL: 40B/371-1432 (h)
TL: 650/496-1262 (w)
EM: iill.zahne!@dnax.org
8 March 2004
To: Melinda Denis
FAX:408j866-8381
Fr: Jill A. Zahner
RE:: 1252 Ridgeley Drive Fence Exception: Setback
MelindÐ,
Just an update on the support letter from my neighbor at 1276
Ridgeley. Ms. Lauderdale has reviewed my proposal for a fence exception
carefully and in general is pleased that I am proposing a 6', not 7' fence,
along Midway, which she indicates makes her well-disposed toward my plans
for a set-back exception. However, she appears to be in discussions with
other ndghbors about this project and needs mOre time to complete her
review. Hopefully I will have something definitive for you by the end of this
week. ..J az
RECEIVED
MAR 0 8 2004
CITY Of CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPT.
of( . CA<1r
. J6<5>
;:;. «'
- 'r""
U r-
CAMPBELL
L
'-.
( . \..\
V
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department
March 1, 2004
Ms. Jill A. Zahner
1252 Ridgeley Drive
Campbell, CA 95008
Re:
Fence Exception Application
File No.: PLN2004-00013
1252 Ridgeley Drive
Dear Ms. Zahner:
Thank you for your submittal of a Fence Exception Application for a fence exception on .
property located at 1252 Ridgeley Drive. The Community Development Department has
received and reviewed your application for a fence exception for the rear and street side property
lines of your property located at 1252 Ridgeley Drive.
Your application has been deemed incomplete. Additional information is needed in order to
consider your application. Please submit the following materials:
1. Letter of Consent from adjacent property owner at 1276 Ridgeley Drive.
If you cannot obtain a letter of consent from your adjacent neighbor at 1276 Ridgeley Drive, the
Community Development Director shall refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a
decision and would be decided upon at a public hearing.
Please feel free to contact me at (408) 866-2142 or by email at melindad@cityofcampbell.com if
you have any question regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
L!l1:/(p¿Yff ~
Melinda M. Denis
Planner I
cc:
Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner
70 North First Street. Campbell, California 95008- t 436 . TEL 408.866.2140 . FAX 408.87 t .5 t 40 . TIJD 408.866.2790
-
JiH A. Zahner
1252 Ridgeley Drive
Campbell, CA 95008
TL: 408/371-1432 (h) 650/496-1262 (w)
EM: iill.zahner@dnax.org
RECEIVED
JAN 3 0 2004
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPT.
29 January 2004
To:
RE:
Campbell City Planning Department
Fence Exception - Setback
1252 Ridgeley Drive, Campbell, CA 95008
I am respectfully requesting a fence exception to the setback on my non-conforming
lot at the above address, to allow me to use all new board to replace my rotted fence. My
fence was blown apart by storms a year ago in November 2002, and in several places is
completely on the ground, or headed there. I would like to replace the rotted board with
all-new board as follows:
1. Along North Midway Street, all 6 ft board (See Rationale 1 & photos)
2. Along my rear-line property using 6 ft board from current fence/property
line, back 10 feet, thence using 7 ft for the remaining 49 ft. (See
Rationale 2 & photo)
My home was grandfathered into the City at some point in the past, the fact of
which I was completely unaware when I purchased the property 3 years ago. I was informed
by the City of Campbell Planning Department in the fall of 2003 that the use of even one
new board would constitute a 'rebuild', and thus preclude it as a 'replace/repair', of my
fence. A rebuild would then be subject to the existing fence code, which states that I must
have a 15-ft setback (it is currently a 5 ft setback) from the interior side of the sidewalk
that is adjacent to my property along N. Midway Drive.
Please see list of attachments enclosed for complete documentation and rationales
for this application. It is my hope that after the Planning Department/Commission reviews
the application and attachments, I will be granted a fence exception that will allow me to
replace my fence using all new board on my current fence/property line.
I thank you for your kind attention to my application.
Sinc~, --"
~.~ahner ~
4.
Rationale #1
Fence Exception Application - Setback
1252 Ridgeley Drive
Begging your indulgence, I am providing detailed explanations, as I may not get the
opportunity to do so by phone or in person. Hopefully, this approach will save time:
1. Value of the Address: I bought my home primarily for its huge backyard, with the
intention of completely re-landscaping it to include more trees, a fountain,
replacement of the existing old arbor, etc. Of particular note is that the primary
living area in the home does not face Ridgeley Drive, but looks directly out ont-o the
backyard (see Photos 1 &: 2). This situation makes my plan for backyard landscaping
even more important to me, as well as to any future residents. While the house
itself has been undergoing aesthetic and energy-saving improvements, the size of
the house will not be the biggest selling point for the property in 25 years' time; the
size of the property, along with a well-landscaped backyard, will. As you will note
from Photo 3, the vertical marker indicating the 15 ft setback location would seem
to indicate that the installation of a fence there would be improbable, due to an
existing window.
Loss of Property Value: My fence on the North Midway side is currently situated on
my property line (see Photos 4 &: 5, and Attachments 11A &: 11B). If my fence moves
10 feet further back into my backyard along the North Midway side, I will be losing
approximately 1,113 sq ft of my property to the street. This 1,113 sq ft is currently
valued, according to the County Assessor's property valuation of my home, at
$84,434. This land, left within its current domain, will definitely appreciate over
time and add to the value of my home. However, that value will be lost if the land
is assigned to the street side of a fence. It's my opinion that buyers will not be
willing to pay a premium for a piece of land which is not readily accessible for their
enjoyment and comfort, especially since the house itself is quite small. It is worth
noting that the 1,113 sq ft I would lose is greater than the square footage of the
house itself (1,076 sq ft).
Loss of Use &: Protection - Driveway: If my current fence line changes, I will lose
more than one-third of my private driveway to the Midway street side (see Photo 6
for vertical marker of 15 ft setback). This loss would preclude me from building a
protective fence, like the one in place on the current fence line (see Photo 8), I will
indeed require some kind of protection, as my driveway now abuts the new North
Midway sidewalk which--alongthe driveway section of my property--is now
approximately 1 ft lower than the driveway itself (see Photos 7A &: 7B). Before the
improvement project, the sidewalk was flush with the driveway surface and a fence
was required to keep foot-traffic from cutting across the yard. Now, however, a
protective fence is necessary to ensure that a second car coming into the driveway
will not accidentally drop into the sidewalk area.
In any case, a 15 ftsetback may be improbable, considering its location, which
would put it directly into the path of the garage door (see Photo 6).
Loss/Position of Backyard Gate: If the current fence line changes, I will lose the
existingnand only--gate to my backyard (see Photo 6). The existing gate provides a
clear access from my backyard to the curb for my refuse cans and for
gardening/upkeep. If I lose the current fence line, I will have to put a gate
somewhere along the North Midway section. Looking to the future, I foresee
problems-when I'm 70 years old--with my ability to maneuver my garbage cans out
the North Midway section and around the corner onto Ridgeley for the garbage
2.
3.
ATTACHMENT 2.1
5.
collectors, or to get my lawn-mower out to the front yard. A North Midway gate
would be very inconvenient to the general pattern of traffic in and around the house
and garage.
Traffic Engineering OK: The City of Campbell Traffic Engineering Department was
out to my intersection last summer (2003) to survey my property for traffic visibility
in the area. Matt Jue, Traffic Engineer, concluded that there were no visibility
issues for drivers at that intersection. Additionally, Lisa Peterson, Project Manager
for the North Midway Street Project, assessed the same area and found that the
sight-line was clear and safe. You may contact either of them for more information.
6.
Neighbors' Property Values: I am also concerned for my neighbors and their
property values. If I repair the current fence with the existing rotted board in order
to keep it at its current property line, it will not well support the flowering vines
that were once growing, thus leaving my neighbors to experience a ramshackle
fence. If I'm allowed to completely rebuild my 6 ft-high fence on the current
fence/property line, I will be able to plant more climbing flowers that will make the
long expanse of fence along North Midway Drive much more attractive, and more
importantly will provide a deterrent to weeds that have proven themselves to be
rampant growers in the current setback area.
Aesthetics: Last, but not least, I will lose my beloved Pippin apple tree to the street if
I have to move my fence back another 10 feet into my yard (see Photo 9). While this
may seem an inconsequential point to many people, it was one of those 'seemingly
insignificant', but personally meaningful factors that proved to be decisive when I
elected to buy this home.
7.
See also informational Photos 10A and 10B for December 2003 views of adjacent property
(1272 Ridgeley Drive) and rear-line property (181 Midway).
ATTACHMENT 2.1
---
Rationale #2
Fence Exception Application - Mixed Footage
1252 Ridgeley Drive
I am proposing the use of a mixed 6ft17ft fence on my rear-line fence/property line
because I wish to protect my backyard from the excessive night time light coming into my
yard from my rear-line neighbors at 181 N. Midway. Their lights are positioned at regular
intervals around all sides of their home, at about gutter height, and are on from dusk to
dawn. These lights are not motion-detector lights, which means that they are on
continuously throughout the night. During the Christmas season this lighting situation is
intensified due to 8-10 roof figurines, 3-4 lawn figurines, as well as strings of lights running
up two palm trees-all of which are left on throughout the night.
I have sincere respect for my neighbors' desire to have their home protected with
lighting, and I am trying to accommodate those needs while still honoring my own need to
reduce the amount of light pouring into my backyard. I propose to do this using 6 ft board
from the current fence/property line on N. Midway, back 10 feet, thence using 7 ft board
for the remaining 49 feet of my rear property line. This arrangement creates a 7 ft fence-
barrier that would substantially mitigate the light coming into my backyard from their
security lighting system--if not from the seasonal Christmas lights--while keeping a critical
portion of the fence at the original 6 ft. (See Attachment 2.2A for letter of consent from
rear line neighbor for 7 ft fence).
ATTACHMENT 2.2
July 18,2003
To whom it may concern:
I am aware that my neighbor, Jill AZahner, owner of the property 1252 Ridgeley Drive,
is requesting a Fence Exception, from the city of Campbell, to allow her to build a fence
seven (7) feet high. I have no objection to this plan
Peter Stonarël
Judith Einstein
181 N. Midway St.
Campbell, CA 95008
408-377- 7496
-i. ~~
~...r~ ~-~
lii(Ñ. Midway St. -
Campbell, CA 95008
408-377-7496
ATTACHMENT 2.2A
October 2003
I am aware of plans my neighbor, Jill Zahner, 4as to put in a new fence
on her property at 1252 Ridgeley Drive. She requires a letter from her
adjoining neighbors regarding her appeal to the Campbell City Planning
Department to allow her to keep the current fence line on her property. I
have no objection to her plans to maintain her fence line as it exists.
~~
..: -,,#-;~ -- ~
C-~ft:re --
G) '^'-J /ä-) J
(;l'Vp //}r
Print Name
I ¡ / NJ
Address
¿;q-n ~ ¿;c ~
""1 / /J t../Iðr JF;
c;q- :? JZJ {) ?
$/tJF-~6 ?377
Phone
ATTACHMENT 3
October 17, 2003
Dear Ms. Denis:
REceiVED
oe1 2. 2. 2003
em OF CAMPBELL
PLANN\NG DEPT.
Melinda Denis
Community Development Dept.
70 North First street
Campbell, CA 95008-1436
Thank you for sending me a copy of your letter to Ms. Zahner
summarizing the information you conveyed to her at your last
meeting and for the e~cerpt from the Municipal code, chapter
21.64, Nonconforming Buildings. I read the latter carefully
and it seems to me there are at least three reasons therein
which would prohibit her rebuilding the present fence where
it stands:
First of all, if I understood you correctly, Section
21.64.030--Maintenance, Repairs, and Alterations, part of which
you highlighted, could be construed in Ms. Zahner's case as
justification for rebuilding her fence with the same
nonconforming 5 ft. set-back providing she uses part of the
old fence and terms it a "repair". However, as I related in
our phone conversation, sections of the fence blew down in last
December's storm and additional ones have since given way because
the lumber which comprises the fence is disintegrating.
To confirm this, I have enclosed a number of recent photographs
including a close-up of a typical panel showing the condition
of the wood; overlapping shots of the fence on west Midway from
the 3 ft. high section on the top right of the page to the south
corner on the lower left side; and exterior and interior views
of the south fence between her property and the Stonnards'.
After viewing these, it is unlikely that any reasonable person
would consider this dilapidated structure repairable.
However, even if it were possible to reconstruct the fence using
dubiously salvageable bits of the old lumber, the cost of labor,
new support posts, and sound lumber would exceed the 75% cost
of new construction limit on "repairs" set by Section
21.64.050--Restoration of Damaged Building, and would not be
allowable.
Secondly, "repairing" it would contradict the intent of the
code, Section 21.64.010--Purpose. "This chapter is intended
to limit the number and extent of nonconforming structures by
prohibiting their-----restoration after destruction. Eventually,
all nonconforming structures are to be eliminated or altered
to conform to the district regulations in which they are
located." Considering the condition of this fence, the
inescapable question arises--if not now, when?
Lastly, Section 21.64.020, Continuation. states "Nonconforming
structures, lawfully constructed prior to the enactment of
rezoning---------may be continued only in conformity with the
provisions of this chapter (21.64)." Subsequently, Section
21.64.060, Exceptions, in essence states that a structure that
fails to meet the setback requirements for the district in which
it is located, if altered, must not be detrimental to the safety
of persons residing in the neighborhood. Since the southeast
corner of the present fence including the fruit tree growing
there blocks her neighbors' vision of oncoming traffic from
their driveway, this section seems to be a further argument
against allowing the fence to be "repaired" and remain in it's
present location--at least, that corner of it.
In summary, I have lived at the corner of Ridgeley and Midway
since 1966, voted for annexation to the city of Campbell on
the promise of improved services, and invested a great deal
of time, effort and resources in maintaining my home in such
a way that it would retain its value. Naturally, this interest
extends to the upkeep and beautification of my side street,
Midway, and the neighborhood as well. So, after all these years,
when the City is finally paving west Midway, it couldn't be
a more appropriate time to begin eliminating the neglected
nonconforming structures there as they fall into disrepair and
blight the surrounding well-kept properties. This would be
in full accord with the stated purpose of the code and I urge
the City to abide by it in a timely manner.
Thank you for your courtesy.
Yours sincerely,
C)~ /~h/è.-
Patricia Lauderdale
1276 Ridgeley Drive
Campbell, CA 95008
cc Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner