Loading...
PC Min - 03/11/2014CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. MARCH 11, 2014 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of March 11, 2014, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Resnikoff and the following proceedings were had, to wit: TUESDAY Rni i roi i Commissioners Present: Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Paul Resnikoff Cynthia L. Dodd Pam Finch Yvonne Kendall Philip C. Reynolds, Jr. Michael L. Rich Commissioners Absent Staff Present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES None Comm. Dev. Director: Planning Manager: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Recording Secretary: Paul Kermoyan Aki Honda Snelling Daniel Fama William Seligmann Corinne Shinn Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Kendall, seconded by Commissioner Dodd, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of February 25, 2014, were approved. (6-0) COMMUNICATIONS 1. One desk item for Agenda Item 4 was distributed. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS Director Paul Kermoyan advised that due to a noticing description error Agenda Item 4 would have to be pulled from this agenda and correctly renoticed for the March 25tH meeting. He added that a revised agenda for this evening's meeting was distributed to the Commission by email on Friday with an added Miscellaneous Item allowing the Commission to select a Vice Chair. ORAL REQUESTS There were no Oral Requests. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS Commissioner Reynolds recused himself from Agenda Item 1 due to a professional conflict of interest. He left the dais and chambers for the duration of the hearing. Chair Resnikoff read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: PLN2013-288 Public Hearing to consider the application of Verizon Verizon Wireless Wireless for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2013-288) to allow modification and continued operation of a telecommunications facility (monopole) on property located at 910 McGlincy Lane in an M-1 (Light Industrial) 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, Associate Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the existing site was approved in 1989 and secured a Conditional Use Permit in 2010 to allow continued operation for an additional 10 years. • Described the project site as being zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) with a corresponding General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial. • Explained that the applicant seeks to replace six existing panels with new and an added fourth antenna arm with one new panel. The panels are 6-inches wider than the existing and the installation is below 75 feet. • Advised that findings must be made that this proposal has minimal visibility impacts. The Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2008 limits the acceptable reasons for denial of such requests. • Recommended approval as this installation is determined by staff not to create an adverse visibility impact. Commissioner Finch presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 3 • SARC reviewed this project on February 11, 2014, and was supportive as presented. Chair Resnikoff opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Resnikoff closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Dodd, seconded by Commissioner Rich, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4140 approving a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2013-288) to allow modification and continued operation of a telecommunications facility (monopole) on property located at 910 McGlincy Lane, subject to the conditions of approval, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Dodd, Finch, Kendall, Resnikoff, and Rich NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Reynolds Chair Resnikoff advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. Commissioner Reynolds returned to the chambers and dais at the conclusion of Agenda Item No. 1. **~ Chair Resnikoff read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record as follows: 2. PLN2013-356 Public Hearing to consider the application of Scott Rempfer for a Rempfer, S. Modification to a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2013-356) to allow expansion of an existing large fitness studio into an adjacent tenant space on property located at 140 N. San Tomas Aquino Road in a C-1 (Neighborhood 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: Daniel, Associate Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the subject site is within the San Tomas Plaza, a 9.3-acre site with 129,000 square feet of retail space and 500 parking spaces. It is zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) with a corresponding General Plan land use designation. • Explained that currently this fitness facility is located at the far northeast corner of the center, in the building also containing the Dollar Tree store. This fitness use secured a Conditional Use Permit in 2007. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 4 • Added that they are proposing the expansion of the fitness facility into the adjacent space and would increase its space from its current 2,400 square feet to 5,200 square feet. The plan is to provide small group sessions two at a time with up to 10 participants in each class. The proposed hours of operation are between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m., Monday through Saturday. • Said that this request is reviewed for land use consistency. There is no late night activity proposed. • Advised that the parking requirements for a fitness use are identical to those for a retail use so this represents no increase in the parking demand for the site. • Explained that a maximum occupancy of 25 will be imposed with this Modified Use Permit. • Recommended that the Commission adopt a resolution approving this Modification to apreviously-approved Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions of approval. Chair Resnikoff opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Scott Rempfer, Applicant and Business Owner: • Thanked the Commission for its time. • Reported that he is expanding his business into the adjacent tenant space. • Advised that his facility focuses on family fitness, specifically fitness training for obese kids. The expansion will allow them more space to serve both these kids and their parents. Commissioner Finch asked if there was any neighbor outreach done. Scott Rempfer replied no. Commissioner Finch said that 10 p.m. seems late if they are serving kids. Scott Rempfer said that the kids are done by 5 p.m. and the evening hours to 10 p.m. are geared toward adults. Chair Resnikoff closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Reynolds: • Stated that this will be nice for the area. • Added that he supports fitness especially in children. • Cautioned that as retail space is converted to service uses some tax base is lost. That needs to be kept in mind and considered. • Said that he would be supportive of this request. It is of minimal size in relation to the size of this center. Commissioner Finch: • Agreed with Commissioner Reynolds and said that it is important to consider that factor when looking at future projects. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 5 • Added that based on its location within this center, she is comfortable supporting this request. Commissioner Rich: • Pointed out that given the turnover that has occurred in this tenant space, it will be nice to have stability in tenancy. • Added that the parking at the center is good. • Concluded that he is definitely in favor of approval. Commissioner Resnikoff stated his agreement with the comments of Commissioner Reynolds. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Finch, seconded by Commissioner Kendall, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4141 approving a Modification to a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2013- 356) to allow expansion of an existing large fitness studio into an adjacent tenant space on property located at 140 N. San Tomas Aquino Road, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Dodd, Finch, Kendall, Resnikoff, Reynolds and Rich NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Resnikoff advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *** Chair Resnikoff read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record as follows: 3 PLN2013-199 Public Hearing to consider the Appeal of Hung Hoang and Van Hoang/Nguyen Anh Nguyen of an Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2013-199) that approved atwo-story single-family residence on property owned by Ashok Anumandla on 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, Associate Planner Mr. Daniel Fama, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Reported that the project site is a 12,700 square foot single-family residential property on Kenneth Avenue, south of Budd. It is zoned R-1-10 (Single-Family Residential) and falls within the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan (STANP) area. The General Plan land use designation is Low Density Residential. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 6 • Explained that the existing single-family residence on the property was constructed in 1951. A secondary living unit with an attached two-car garage was constructed in 2011 and a tennis court was approved via Conditional Use Permit also in 2011. • Stated that the proposal is for a new two-story home in a contemporary style consisting of 3,000 square feet of living area and a 259 square foot attached garage. • Advised that the original plans were submitted in July 2013 and approved in January, 2014. The approval was appealed on February 6, 2014. The appellants are the rear fence neighbors whose primary concern is privacy impacts caused by the balcony located off the proposed master bedroom. The size of this balcony was thus reduced in size from 30 to 25 feet and a set of double doors to it have been eliminated. • Reported that the appellants and applicants have reached a solution to concerns. It will involve the revision to the rear elevation to eliminate a rear gable. It will become a hip roof. Additional landscaping and an 8-foot fence are also incorporated to help mitigate privacy concerns. • Stated that staff has prepared revised findings and conditions of approval. • Said that the appellants' representative will explain their position. Commissioner Rich advised that he drove by the site on Sunday. He asked if the existing house would be torn down. Planner Daniel Fama replied yes. The existing house would be completely demolished and an entirely new home constructed. Commissioner Kendall asked if the other structure on site would remain. Planner Daniel Fama replied yes. The secondary living unit would be retained. Chair Resnikoff opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. John Livingstone, Appellants' Representative: • Explained that he is a planning consultant assisting the appellants. • Added that they wish to retain their privacy while allowing their neighbor to be able to construct their new house. • Reported that the applicant is willing to make some changes. The first recommendation offered to the applicant was to lose the proposed gable at the rear elevation and replace it with a hip roof. That makes the balcony more subtle with the elimination of that gable. The next recommendation was to replace the existing 6-foot high fence separating these properties with a solid 8-foot high fence. As the existing cypress planted along the tennis court is slow growing and not filling in quickly, additional screening landscaping is proposed. The applicant is willing to install vegetation on their (appellants') side so they can maintain it. • Suggested that a dollar amount for vegetation be established with the actual plants to be selected and decided upon later. • Stated that the owner (applicant) was very kind to agree to these suggestions so far. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 7 Commissioner Reynolds asked Mr. Livingstone if he was the project architect. John Livingstone said he was not but that the project architect is present this evening. Commissioner Kendall asked if the additional landscaping would be placed on the applicant's side of the fence or on the appellants' side. John Livingstone: • Said that either way is acceptable. • Pointed out that there is but atwo-foot wide planting space on the applicant's property where the existing cypresses were placed to help screen their tennis court. They may outgrow that area in the future. • Added that the applicant is fine with the idea of putting screening plants on the neighbors' side. Commissioner Rich asked if an actual allowance amount was discussed between both parties. John Livingstone replied no. Commissioner Finch admitted to having the same question. Karen McCabe, Resident on Kenneth Avenue: • Advised that she lives five houses down on a similar lot. • Stated that the appellants would be overwhelmingly overlooked upon by this new proposed home. • Added that it appears that an agreeable solution has been found through the use of a higher fence and screening plants. Van Anh Nguyen, Resident on Jeffrey Avenue & Appellants' representative: • Explained that she used to live in the house. • Added that privacy is affected in the living, master bedroom and family room with big doors. From the second floor they will see a lot into the back property. • Stated that they are concerned with loss of privacy into the home and not from within the yard. • Said that a request for privacy is a reasonable request. Linda Niles, Resident on Sobrato Drive: • Admitted that the house would not affect her. • Advised that she moved into her home in 2012 and loved the quaintness of this neighborhood but is seeing a trend of overbuilding going on in the neighborhood. • Pointed out that the houses were designed in 1962. The whole back wall is all glass. • Added that when this applicant installed a tennis court it came with a tall black net that is visible to the appellants' from their home and yard. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 8 Chair Reynolds cautioned that the issue of the tennis court is not a part of the discussion tonight. It is the proposed new home that is under consideration. Linda Niles: • Stated that there is no room for screening trees now because of the tennis court. • Added that it shouldn't be "my" responsibility to put screening trees in to enhance a neighbor's property. • Said that the rights and privacy are being taken away. • Questioned who would want to look at an 8-foot fence. • Concluded that if it happens to them (appellants) it can happen to her as well. Commissioner Dodd asked when permits are approved for things in a backyard whether planting room is supposed to be retained. Director Paul Kermoyan said that if it were it would have been added. Planner Daniel Fama: • Said that there is some requirement for screening. However, as the planting is just 2.5 years old, the trees planted are still immature. • Added that the planting area could have been wider if only there had been more space available. • Pointed out that the tennis court is nearly regulation size. Commissioner Finch asked about limitations on fence heights. Planner Daniel Fama said that fencing is allowed up to 6-feet unless a Fence Exception application is approved. Commissioner Dodd asked if an agreement to install an 8-foot fence would become a part of this approval. Would it be approved for just the fence section separating these two properties (appellants' and applicant's). Planner Daniel Fama explained that the proposal is for an 8-foot fence running along the entire rear property line thereby screening for both rear fence neighboring properties. Director Paul Kermoyan: • Clarified for the Commission that the existing tennis court on the property can be looked at as an issue in consideration of the request for this new house. • Agreed that the true project before the Commission is the house but consideration can be taken of the other structures on site and site layout. The Commission can consider if the house proposed is too big in relation to what is already there or the Commission can consider that there are no constraints and this proposed house is fine. • Added that issues such as traffic, landscaping and site layout can be considered. Commissioner Resnikoff added that the use of the court itself cannot be considered. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 9 Director Paul Kermoyan said that is true but reiterated that the Commission can consider any constraints of the property in its evaluation. Diane Okamoto, Resident on Jeffrey: • Stated that she is an original owner having lived in her home since 1964. • Said that her home includes a master bedroom with a 6-foot slider. There is 18 feet of window in the living room facing the backyard. There is a 6-foot slider in the kitchen leading to the backyard. The back of her home is all windows and she feels she has all the privacy in the world. • Advised that she went to her neighbor's (appellant) after the tennis court went it. • Added that a homeowner should have both privacy and freedom to use their backyard. She has a right to have children in her backyard. • Reported that another neighbor built atwo-story and talked about it with her in advance. • Concluded that it is important for someone wanting to construct atwo-story to discuss it with their neighbors to see if it is okay. Joanne Fairbanks, Resident on Hacienda Avenue: • Said that this is a perfect example of an application that pits one neighbor against another. • Said that this proposal reduces the comfort, enjoyment and privacy that they (appellants) had. • Suggested removing the balcony and redesigning the windows on this proposed new home. David Giannella, Project Architect, introduced himself and said he was available for questions. Commissioner Reynolds: • Asked Mr. Giannella to give his professional impression on the proposed revised roof line from gable to hip at the rear of the house. How much negative impact did the previous design create over the new proposed design? David Giannella: • Responded that he just heard about that proposed solution. • Opined that it represents more of a psychological change than an actual change. The windows are 9-feet tall. People on the balcony would be more visible with the design change. • Added that he feels bad about the window loss in the bathroom. Commissioner Reynolds asked about sight-line from the balcony to the rear yard and home windows of the house behind. Given the setback, will they have sight-line into bedrooms in the back neighbor's home. What is visible? David Gianella: • Replied that once trees grow, nothing will be visible of the back property. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 10 • Stated that they (rear neighbor) have a roof overlook on their side. There is a 120- footdistance. • Pointed out that the consideration is always, "if you can see them, they can see you." In designing the home, he is careful of that consideration. • Added that for the proposed 6-foot window in the bedroom, the shed roof shades it. Commissioner Reynolds: • Asked the architect, if the applicant raises the rear fence to 8-foot and there is 120 feet between the balcony and the appellants' house, what sight-line would there be with the 8-foot fence. David Gianella, Project Architect, replied perhaps the lower portion of the window. Commissioner Reynolds said that he wants the neighbors to have their privacy. David Gianella, Project Architect, said that there is a solid railing on the balcony and side walls as well. He added that they are not overbuilding on this large lot. Commissioner Rich asked if a dollar amount has been calculated for the potential screening trees. David Gianella, Project Architect, said that discussion just happened about an hour ago and landscaping has not been discussed with the landscape architect. He said that perhaps a recommendation by the City on appropriate trees would be helpful. Commissioner Rich asked for confirmation that both the appellants and the applicant agree to this option. David Gianella, Project Architect, said that his client accepts that suggestion. Chair Resnikoff said it appears the agreement reached includes the roofline, 8-foot fence and additional screening landscaping. He suggested planting on the applicant's property if there is room. Commissioner Rich supported some allowance be given to the appellants to plant on their property. Van Anh Nguyen, Resident on Jeffrey Avenue & Appellants' representative: • Stated that the second preference is planting on the appellants' property while their first preference is that the trees are planted on the applicant's side. • Reiterated that planting on the appellants' property is their last choice. Commissioner Rich asked if they would accept that option. Van Anh Nguyen, Resident on Jeffrey Avenue & Appellants' representative, said that they would if all involved find it to be the reasonable option. Ashok Anumandla, Applicant & Owner: Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 11 • Explained that between the tennis court and the fence they have planted cypress with six-feet of space in between each one to allow them to grow together. • Informed that when he was asked by his neighbors to put in more screening cypresses he immediately did so by placing additional cypresses in the spaces between those already planted and existing. • Added that once grown, these cypresses will completely block visibility between the properties. • Reported that the existing house was constructed in 1951 and is not livable. It is not in great condition. • Advised that they are building a nice house to retire in. • Stated that he ended up building a clay tennis court as they are less noisy. He advised that his son plays tennis and he tried everything reasonable when the court was approved. It is used a few times a week and fits in the area. • Said that he went to all connected homeowners with his plans per attachment 9. While he knocked at the door of his back fence neighbor on several occasions no one answered. He assured that he was not trying to hide his plan to construct a new home and that his side neighbors are supportive of his proposal. He tried to do everything right. • Explained that his original design was bigger and staff told him that it was not approvable. • Assured that he is not trying to damage this neighborhood and is willing to work to fix problems. • Concluded that with the additions, the row of cypresses are now very close and will grow together. Commissioner Kendall asked the applicant if he agrees with the requirement of an 8- foot high fence along the back property line. Ashok Anumandla, Applicant & Owner, reported that the other back neighbor didn't want more trees. He admitted that he doesn't know who he must please. Van Anh Nguyen, Resident on Jeffrey Avenue & Appellants' representative, said that the neighbors (appellants) were unaware of the plans for the tennis court previously approved for this property at the time of review. Ashok Anumandla, Applicant & Owner, said he tried to talk with this neighbor when he was advised of their appeal. He spoke on the phone with the back neighbors and had suggested a group meeting. This neighbor wanted written correspondence only and not a meeting. Chair Resnikoff closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Chair Resnikoff asked staff if the Commission has the purview to condition the placement of landscaping on another property. City Attorney Bill Seligmann said generally not unless both sides are willing to accept that condition. If so, it is possible to so condition. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 12 Director Paul Kermoyan: • Pointed out that trees often mature in such a way as to overgrow the area in which it was planted. They can overgrow the space available. • Added that the landscaping strip along this tennis court is limited in size and the types of vegetation that it could accommodate long term. The cypresses planted are a good choice albeit slow growing at first. • Advised that if the Commission believes the existing cypresses are too short, a condition can be imposed to replace them will taller ones. • Suggested that the screening landscaping be imposed on this project rather than the appellants' property. Commissioner Finch: • Said that she lives in a neighborhood with atwo-story home behind hers that is set back just about 15 feet from their shared back fence. • Said that in this instance, she has a hard time understanding the problem when there is a 100 foot distance between these two homes. • Pointed out that this home is proposed at 33 percent FAR where 35 percent is allowed. The home is on the front portion of the lot. • Suggested that the privacy concern could be solved with the 8-foot high fence. It is plenty. • Added that she is pleased that the neighbors worked this out. • Said that the applicant has the right to build a home on his parcel and what is proposed is well under the maximum allowed. • Stated that others in the neighborhood have added on to their homes as well. There are five or six two-story homes nearby. • Said that from a real estate perspective this project will improve surrounding property values if it is done carefully and well designed. • Concluded that with the installation of the 8-foot fence, she believes no additional planting is required on the applicant's property. Commissioner Dodd: • Stated that this neighborhood is changing. • Said that her biggest concern was the issue of adding vegetation and said that added vegetation on the applicant's property could interfere with the functioning of the tennis court nets, which are important to maintain near the tennis court. Commissioner Kendall: • Stated that she likes the house. It has a good design and is smaller than the maximum allowed. • Pointed out that 120 feet is quite a good distance between these two homes. • Stated that even with a 6-foot fence privacy is not that impacted given that distance. • Added that the sensitivity is the tennis court. A good job has been done with the greenery. • Cautioned that an 8-foot tall fence would feel "blocking" in her opinion. It won't look good on either side and would not be attractive. • Suggested that any vegetation installed be evergreen rather than deciduous. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 13 • Pointed out that the existing home on this parcel is 65 years old and what is proposed is a more modern style. • Said that this is a substantial sized property that can handle the size of home proposed. Commissioner Reynolds: • Reported that he served on the Commission at the time of the tennis court approval and the Commission vetted that request very carefully. • Reminded that the tennis court is not what is up for discussion tonight. • Advised that he is okay with the size of this proposed house as it falls under the maximum allowed size per the regulations of the STANP. • Pointed out that this is a 12,000 square foot lot that is twice the size of his property. • Agreed with Commissioner Finch on the proposed 8-foot tall fence. • Asked if perhaps a 7-foot fence with 1-foot of lattice at the top might not suffice. • Stated that he was concerned with the methods of communication between the appellants and the applicant. • Added that he encourages all neighbors city-wide to communicate with one another. • Said that he understands that if one neighbor feels threatened by another that may reduce contact. • Pointed out that everyone must live in close proximity and must find ways to get along, to talk with your neighbors and to be receptive to them and hear them out even though you don't always have to agree. • Stated that with better neighbor communication perhaps this appeal could have been avoided. • Advised that he will vote to uphold the Community Development Director's decision on this proposal. He added that the Planning Department does a wonderful job and reviews projects with afine-tooth comb when making recommendations to the Planning Commission. • Said he will support the resolution as written and is okay with the 8-foot solid fence or the 7-foot solid with 1-foot lattice alternative as well. Chair Resnikoff explained that if the Commission wants the modified fence to be included they should uphold the appeal. If the Commission prefers the project as originally approved, the Commission would deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision. Commissioner Reynolds said that he didn't agree with all of the conditions and questions the need to redesign the roof at the back and doesn't support that change unless there is evidence to show it helps. Commissioner Rich: • Stated that the applicant has the right to build and what he proposes fits within the Code. • Added that the applicant is seeking to accommodate his family and commended his efforts to accommodate his neighbors as well. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 14 • Stated his support for this application "as is" and suggests no condition for additional landscaping. • Said that the installation of an 8-foot fence along the back is okay with him if necessary but also without including it as well. He can go either way with regard to this fence. Commissioner Kendall said supported the rear roof line change from gable to hip and said if the fence helps she is fine upholding the appeal to allow the fence to be increased in height. Commissioner Finch: • Agreed with Commissioner Kendall. If both sides agree to the fence height increase she is okay with it as well. • Added that as the architect has pointed out the change in roof line from gable to hip may give the impression of a change but really it changes nothing. The rear elevation would be more interesting without changing from a gable to hip roof design. Chair Resnikoff: • Pointed out that this is a large lot and there is a long distance between this proposed home and the home behind it. He doesn't see privacy issues resulting. • Said that he was in favor of the fence at 7-foot height with 1-foot lattice as it is more appealing in appearance. • Said he is hesitant to require additional landscaping as there is no room on the subject site and he doesn't want to compel the applicant to place landscaping on a neighbor's property. • Questioned the "gaps" in the fence. • Stated that if the roof line change appeases the rear neighbor and the applicant is willing, he will support that change as it solves the perception of impact on the part of the rear neighbor. • Suggested the use of landscaping to tie in with the 8-foot fence. Commissioner Rich said that he agrees that continuity in the fencing is important and suggested leaving it at a 6-foot height all the way across and let it go. Commissioner Dodd said that the Commission is getting into picky detail and agreed that continuity of a 6-foot fence all the way across the back property line might be best. She asked if there is any requirement for a permit to add the 1-foot lattice above a 6- foot fence. Director Paul Kermoyan advised that the lattice is part of the fence and anything above 6-feet requires processing of a Fence Exception permit. Commissioner Dodd asked if there is any way to say that the inclusion of the 1-foot of lattice above the 6-foot solid fence is optional and would require a permit. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 15 Director Paul Kermoyan said that the Commission would need to be specific in its conditions of approval. If the Commission wants the fence along the back property line to be the same specified height all along its length then that should be stated in the conditions. If they only want the portion of the fence running along the tennis court to be increased to a specified height then that should be conditioned specifically. Commissioner Finch said that a 7-foot high fence (6-foot solid with 1-foot lattice) is a nice compromise. The lattice can be covered with vines. She said she would like to see continuity all the way along that back fence. Commissioner Kendall said that she didn't feel the lattice panel was necessary and that a 6-foot high fence is fine. Commissioner Reynolds asked staff if an 8-foot fence is possible under the City's fence regulations. Director Paul Kermoyan said that a maximum fence height is 6-foot. At a staff level approval, a fence can be approved for 6-foot height with 1-foot lattice. However as the Planning Commission is reviewing this request, it can approve a taller fence and no Fence Exception would be needed to approve a taller fence. Planner Daniel Fama pointed out that per the Building Code any fence taller than 7- feet needs a building permit as well. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Finch (simply to allow discussion of the merits of the motion), the Planning Commission considered upholding an appeal and upholding the Community Development Director's Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2013- 199) that approved a two-story single-family residence on property owned by Ashok Anumandla on property located at 559 Kenneth Avenue, subject to revised conditions requiring a 7-foot fence with 1-foot lattice be constructed across the entire back property line. City Attorney Bill Seligman said that the findings and conditions would need to be modified by striking a portion of Finding 11 and Condition 2. Director Paul Kermoyan suggested if the only change is the fence than the provision under Condition 2-B can be incorporated into Condition 6 to read that the rear fence shall be constructed at a 6-foot height with 1-foot lattice and that any other new fence shall comply. Commissioner Finch stressed the approval be for a maximum 6-foot solid fence with the 1-foot lattice. Chair Resnikoff asked about the roof change at the back and the requirement for additional landscaping discussed. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 16 Commissioner Finch said that the roof change is not included and she is concerned about adding vegetation to the subject site as she doesn't want the tennis court to be impacted. Commissioner Dodd said that the issue is the fence and the idea of 8-foot high is a big issue. She supports the 6-foot solid with 1-foot lattice for a total height of 7-feet. She added that if it were in her yard, she would plant against the lattice. She concluded that she likes the original roof but since both sides agreed on this change she will also support it. Commissioner Rich said that no additional landscaping is required and he supports the fence having continuity along the entire back. Commissioner Kendall said she too supports the 6-foot solid fence with 1-foot lattice. She also agrees that no additional landscaping is necessary and that she too would support the modified roof since both sides came to an agreement. Chair Resnikoff said he too agrees with the 6-foot solid fence with 1-foot lattice as it helps provide privacy. He is uncomfortable requiring this applicant to install landscaping on another property. He too will support the roof change since it has been agreed upon. Director Paul Kermoyan said that since Commissioner Finch provided the second to the motion simply to allow discussion, at this time she can rescind her second. Commissioner Finch said she would so rescind her second at this time. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Reynolds, seconded by Commissioner Finch, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 4142 upholding the Appeal and modifying the Administrative Site and Architectural Review Permit (PLN2013- 199) that approved a two-story single-family residence on property owned by Ashok Anumandla on property located at 559 Kenneth Avenue, by modifying Condition 7 to require the fence at the back property line to be replaced by a 6-foot solid fence with 1-foot lattice, striking Condition 2 and modifying Finding 11, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Dodd, Finch, Reynolds and Rich NOES: Kendall and Resnikoff ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Resnikoff advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 calendar days. *~* Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for March 11, 2014 Page 17 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 5. Selection of Vice Chair Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Dodd, seconded by Commissioner Kendall, the Planning Commission selected Commissioner Finch to serve as Planning Commission Vice Chair. (6-0) *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Director Paul Kermoyan had no additions to his written report. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 25, 2014. r SUBMITTED BY: Corin Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: ~ ~ ~''2 Paul Resnikoff, Chair ~~ // ATTEST: Paul Kermoya ,Secretary