Fence Exception - 2003August 6, 2003
Mr. and Mrs. Dustin Castro
1058 Lenor Way
San Jose, CA 95128
Re:
Fence Exception Approval (PLN 2003.29)
1058 Lenor Way
Deadline - August 14, 2003
Dear Dustin and Melissa:
Please accept this letter as a reminder regarding your Fence Exception application
approved by the City Council on July 15, 2003. Condition of Approval No. lc of City
Council Resolution No. 10210 indicated that Fence C (street side yard fence) shall be
modified within thirty days from the City Council's approval. Consequently, the removal
of the lattice, addition of a kickboard over the secondary driveway and removal of the
vehicular gate and hardware must be completed by August 14,2003.
If you would like to construct any additional fences on the property exceeding the height
requirements, you will need to apply for a separate fence exception.
If you should have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me
at (408) 866-2142.
Sincerely,
\~
Melinda Denis
Planner I
cc:
Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner
J:\Correspondence\1058 Lenor Way - CorA Approval.doc
70NorthFirstStreet. Campbell,California95008-1436. TEL408.866.2140. FAX408.871.5140. TDo408.866.2790
1059 N. Central A venue
San Jose, CA 95128-4109
July 28, 2003
Mr. & Mrs. Dustin Castro
1058 LenorWay
San Jose, CA 95128-4110
Dear Dustin and Melissa,
I am sorry that working people can not understand that retirees are having real financial
problems these days-everything is going up except our incomes, and they have gone
down even more. Therefore, I can only afford necessities and a new fence is not
necessary.
As I told you last summer, if you want to put lattice on top of the existing back fence, it is
alright with me provided you obtain the proper permits, but I cannot contribute toward it.
I had thought that by permitting you to remove my Magnolia tree last summer (and I
miss it each of these hot days and am still picking up Magnolia leaves from Sam's tree),
we could be good neighbors, but your requests make it very difficult for me. I hope that
you will understand my situation and we can become friends.
Sincerely,
~./é£
Julie Kenney ~
cc Daniel Fence Co.
Campbell Planning Department
RECEIVED
JUL 2 8 2003
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPT.
ç'-
~
...
I
MEMORANDUM
To:
Melinda Denis
lanner I, Comm. Development Department
From:
Date:
Subject:
Appeal of Planning Commission decision (PLN 2003-29) - Fence
Exception - 1058 Lenor Way - Dustin Castro
At a regular meeting of July 15, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing to
consider Mr. Castro's Appeal of two imposed Conditions of Approval attached by the
Planning Commission to Fence Exception (PLN 2003-29) for property located at 1058
Lenor Way in a R-I-6 Zoning District.
After public testimony and Council deliberation, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 10210 denying Mr. Castro's Appeal of two imposed Conditions of Approval and
upholding the Planning Commission approval of a Fence Exception (PLN 2003-29) to
allow a 52-inch high fence within the 15-foot front yard setback, an 88-inch high
interior sideyard fence and a 72-inch high street sideyard fence (with 4-inch decorative
caps for a total height of 76-inches) as well as allowing one 4-foot wide gate along the
street sideyard fence on property located at 1058 Lenor Way.
A certified copy of this Resolution is attached for your records, together with a copy of
the letter written to Mr. Castro in follow up to the City Council's action.
~
-
RESOLUTION NO.
lO2:DO
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CAMPBELL DENYING AN APPEAL OF TWO IMPOSED
CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A FENCE EXCEPTION (pLN2003-29)
TO ALLOW A 52-INCH lllGH FENCE WITlllN THE IS-FOOT FRONT
YARD SETBACK, AN 88-INCH lllGH INTERIOR SIDE YARD FENCE
AND A 72-INCH lllGH STREET SIDEY ARD FENCE (WITH FOUR-
INCH DECORATIVE CAPS FOR A TOTAL HEIGHT OF 76 INCHES)
AS WELL AS ALLOWING ONE FOUR-FOOT WIDE GATE ALONG
THE STREET SIDEY ARD FENCE ON PROPERTY OWNED BY MR.
DUSTIN CASTRO LOCATED AT 1058 LENOR WAY IN AN R-1-6
(SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. APPEAL OF MR.
DUSTIN CASTRO. FILE NO. PLN2003-29.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council did find as follows with
respect to application PLN2003-29.
1. The proposed front yard fence exception (Fence A) consists of a solid wooden fence with a
height of 45 inches and decorative caps of 52 inches above the existing grade of the subject
property where a 42-inch fence is typically pennitted.
2. The proposed interior side yard fence exception (Fence B) consists of a solid wooden fence
with a height of 72 inches, lattice with a height of 84 inches and decorative caps of 88 inches
above the existing grade of the subject property where a 72-inch fence is typically pennitted.
3. The proposed street side yard fence exception (Fence C) consists of a solid wooden fence
with a height of 72 inches and decorative caps of 76 inches above the existing grade of the
subject property where a 72-inch fence is typically pennitted. Removal of Planning
Commission Resolution 3493 Condition of Approval No. l.c would result in a fence height
of 88 inches, resulting in an undesirable site layout due to visual incompatibility with
surrounding properties.
4. The proposed fence heights are not detrimental to the visual appearance of the subject fence
with the height extension and other approved fences on the property. Removal of Planning
Commission Resolution 3493 Conditions of Approval No. I.c and 2 would be injurious to
property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City in that the
fence would visually impair the sidewalk area on Lenor Way.
5. The proposed fence heights enhances the aesthetic appearance by providing additional
variation and wood details. Removal of Planning Commission Resolution 3493 Condition of
Approval No.2, which requires that the existing gate be reconstructed to match the
surrounding fence, would result in an unattractive fence design that would be detrimental to
--
City Council Resolution lO2.L~
PLN2003-29- 1058 Lenor Way
Denying Appeal and Upholding Approval a Fence Exception
Page 2
the health, safety, peace, moral, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working
the neighborhood.
6. The proposed fence heights do not impair pedestrian or vehicular visibility.
7. The project qualifies as a Categorically Exempt project per Section 15303(e), Class 3 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further finds and concludes that:
1. The requested fence exception does not impair pedestrian or vehicular safety.
2. The requested fence exception results in a desirable fence design.
3. The requested fence exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such
proposed use, or will be not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council denies an appeal of two
imposed Conditions of Approval, upholding the Planning Commission's approval of a Fence
Exception (PLN2003-29) to allow a 52-inch high fence within the 15-foot front yard setback, an
88-inch high interior side yard fence and a 72-inch high street sideyard fence (with four-inch
decorative caps for a total height of 76 inches) as well as one four-foot wide gate along the street
sideyard fence on property owned by Mr. Dustin Castro located at 1058 Lenor Way in an R-I-6
(Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District, subject to the
following conditions:
Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works
Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with
all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and
regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the
applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or
Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development
and are not herein specified.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. Project Approval: Project approval shall substantially comply with the applicant's revised
request dated April 13, 2003, Site Plan received on April 18, 2003, exhibits and photographs.
A fence exception is granted for the property located at 1058 Lenor Way to allow:
a. Fence A: 52 inch high solid wood fence with decorative posts and caps within the fifteen
foot front yard setback
City Council Resolution lO¿.LO
PLN2003-29- 1058 Lenor Way
Denying Appeal and Upholding Approval a Fence Exception
Page 3
b. Fence B: 88 inch high solid wood fence with lattice and decorative caps on the interior
side property line
c. Fence C: 72 inch high wood fence with four-inch decorative caps (for a total height of 76
inches) as well as one four-foot wide gate along the street sideyard property line of the
subject property, which shall be modified within 30 days of approval to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director.
2. The applicant shall remove the gate and hardware from Fence C and install a permanent post
in the center of the street side yard driveway. The design of the fence over the portion of the
street side yard driveway shall be the same design as the remaining street side yard fencing.
3. Any modification to Fence C, street side yard fence, to allow for vehicular use of the
driveway is not approved as part of the Fence Exception and would require a separate Fence
Exception approval.
4. The applicant shall install and maintain landscaping along and within the one-foot wide
planting area on the street side of Fence C.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
call vote:
15th day of
July
,2003, by the following roll
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUN CILMEMBERS :
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Watson, Kennedy, Burr, Furtado
Dean
None
APPRO
ATTEST:
t2~~
Anne Bybee, City Clerk
Of'C"A1
~. À~
¡.., ~
.... r
u r'
... "-
-So ...
~. ,,'
O"CHA\lO'
CITY OF CAMPBELL
City Clerk's Office
July 17, 2003
Mr. Dustin Castro
1058 Lenor Way
San Jose, CA 95128
Dear Mr. Castro:
At the regular meeting of July 15, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing to consider
your Appeal of two imposed Conditions of Approval attached to the Planning Commission
decision approving your application for a Fence Exception (pLN 2003-29) for property
located at 1058 Lenor Way. The Planning Commission approved a Fence Exception
allowing a 52-inch high fence within the IS-foot front yard setback, an 88-inch high
interior side yard fence and a 72-inch high street side yard fence (with 4-inch decorative
caps for a total of 76-inches), whereas the Municipal Code limits such front yard fence
heights to 42-inches, side yard fence heights to 72-inches and street side yard fence heights
to 72-inches, subject to Findings and Conditions of Approva1.
Following public testimony and Council deliberation, the City Council adopted Resolution
No. 10210 denying your Appeal of two imposed Conditions of Approval and upholding the
Planning Commission approval of a Fence Exception (pLN 2003-29) to allow a 52-inch
high fence within the IS-foot front yard setback, an 88-inch high interior side yard fence
and a 72-inch high street sideyard fence (with four inch decorative caps for a total of 76-
inches), as well as allowing one four-foot wide gate along the street sideyard fence on
property located at 1058 Lenor Way in an R-I-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning
District. This Resolution was adopted by a 4-1-0 vote, with Councilmember Dean voting
no.
Please find a certified copy of this Resolution attached for your records.
continued
70 North First Street. Campbell, California 95008.1423 . TEL 408.866.2117 . FAX 408.374.6889 . TDD 408.866.2790
, ,
Page 2
Should you have any questions in regard to the City Council's action, please do not hesitate
to contact this office (866-2117) or Melinda Denis, Planner I, Community Development
Department.
~
City Clerk
Ene.
cc. Melinda Denis, Planner I, Comm. Develop. Dept.
Mayor Furtado read an Opening Statement and declared the public hearing open.
City Clerk Bybee read the Clerk's Statement verifying public hearing notification and
stated that no protests were received.
Public Works Director Kass read a Statement as to the nature of the Project.
Mayor Furtado asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. There being no one
wishing to speak, Mayor Furtado closed the public hearing.
M/S: Kennedy/Dean - that the City Council adopt Resolution 10210 approving the
Engineer's Report, ordering the improvements, and confirming the diagram and
assessments for the City of Campbell Lighting and Landscaping District LLA-I for
Fiscal Year 2003/04. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote:
,
AYES: Councilmembers: Watson, Kennedy, Dean, Burr, Furtado
NOES: Councilmembers: None
11.
Appeal of Conditions of Approval regarding Planning Commission decision
approval of Application of Dustin Castro for a Fence Exception (pLN2003-29) to
allow a 52-inch high fence within the 15-foot front yard setback, an 88-inch high
interior side yard fence and a 76-inch high street side yard fence on property
located at 1058 Lenor Way in an R-1-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square
foot minimum lot size) Zoning District (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider an Appeal of Conditions of
Approval regarding the Planning Commission decision approving the Application of
Dustin Castro for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-29) to allow a 52-inch high fence
within the IS-foot frònt yard setback, an 88-inch high interior side yard fence and a 76-
inch high street side yard fence on property located at 1058 Lenor Way in an R-I-6
(Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District.
Planner I Dennis - Staff Report dated July 15, 2003.
Mayor Furtado declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience
wished to be heard.
Paul Porrovecchio, 1021 Lenor Way, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and
stated that his main objection is the gate that opens directly onto the sidewalk which he
believes is a safety issue.
Carol Osburn, 1019 Lenor Way, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and
spoke in support of the Appeal.
,
Minutes of 7/15/2003 City Council Meeting
4
Dustin Castro, 1058 Lenor Way, Campbell, appeared before the Ctiy Council and
stated he is appealing two conditions of approval regarding the removal of lattice and
addition of a kickboard.
Julie Kinney, no address given, appeared before the City Council and stated she owns
the property directly behind the subject property and objects to the height of the fence
which exceeds the City's standards.
.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Furtado closed the public hearing.
Following City Council discussion, M/S: Burr/Kennedy - that the City Council
adopt Resolution 10210 incorporating Findings and Conditions of Approval,
denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission approval of a Fence
Exception (pLN2003-29) and find that the project is Categorically Exempt under
Section 15303, Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pertaining to the conversion of small structures, and modifying Condition of
Approval l.c. approving a "72 inch high wood fence with four-inch decorative caps
(for a total height of 76 inches) as well as one four-foot wide gate along the street
sideyard property line of the subject property, which shall be modified within 30
days of approval to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director."
Motion adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmenibers: Watson, Kennedy, Burr, Furtado
NOES: Councilmembers: Dean
12.
Application of Mr. Paul Ring, on behalf of Regis Homes of Northern California,
Inc. for a Planned Development Permit (pLN2002-146) to allow the development of
24 residential condominium units, a Tentative Subdivision Map (pLN2002-147) and
a Tree Removal Permit (pLN2003-42) to allow the removal of three protected trees
on property owned by Water Tower I, LLC, located at 300 Orchard City Drive in
a CIPD (CondominiumlPlanned Development) Zoning District (Introduction of
Ordinance/Resolutions (3)/Roll Call Vote)
This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider an Application of Mr. Paul
Ring, on behalf of Regis Homes of Northern California, Inc. for a Planned
Development Permit (PLN2002-146) to allow the development of 24 residential
condominium units, à Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2002-147) and a Tree Removal
Permit (PLN2003-42) to allow the removal of three protected trees on property owned
by Water Tower I, LLC, located at 300 Orchard City Drive in a C/P-D
(Condominium/Planned Development) Zoning District.
Planner I Willsey - Staff Report dated July 15,2003.
Mayor Furtado declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience
wished to be heard.
Minutes of 7/15/2003 City Council Meeting
5
('
'.-
City
'Council.
Report
ITEM NO:
CATEGORY:
MEETING DATE:
11.
Public Hearing
JULY 15, 2003
TItLE
Appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving the application of Dustin
Castrò for a Fence Exceptiòn (pLN2003-29) to allòw a 52-inch high fence
within the 15-foot front yard setback, an 88-inchhigh interior side yard fence
and a 72-inch high street side yard fence (with 4-inch decorative caps for a
total height of 76-inches),whereas the Municipal Code limits such front yard
fence heights to 42-inches, side yard fence heights to 72-inches and street side
yardtènce heights to 72-inches at 10S8 Lenor Way in an R-1-6 (Single Family
Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council may take one of the following actions:
-
1. Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, approving an appeal and modifying
the Planning Commission approval of a Fence Exception (pLN2003-29); or
2. Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings and Conditions of Approval,
denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission approval of a Fence Exception
(pLN2003-29) and find that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303, Class
3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to the conversion of small
structures;
3. Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, denying the Planning Commission
approval of a Fence Exception (PLN2oo3-29); or .
4. Continue the item for additional information or refer the project back to the Planning
Commission.
BACKGROUND
The Community Development Department received a complaint that fences exceeding the height
requirements were constructed on the subject property. The property owner, Mr. Dustin Castro,
was notified by the Community Development Department on March 3, 2003 to reduce the height
of the fences to meet the fence requirements or submit an application for a fence exception. A
fence exception application was submitted on March 14, 2003 and scheduled for the Planning
Commission meeting. Planning Commission action was required because the property owner
did not receive consent from all of the adjacent property owners. The Fence Exception
application consisted of the following fences: .
---
City Council Report - July b, 2003
Appeal of the condition of approval of PLN2003-29 - 1058 Lenor Way
Page 2
71:/
¡----.-'---..------..-.-
i
l\
'",,"
,./::'.. ;:-
I>RIVEW4 '
@
~
:>
(J{
'i
~
*---w
Fence A: 52-inch high stepped fence (45-inch
high solid fence with 7-inch decorative caps)
within the IS-foot front yard setback on the
interior side yard property line.
-/
~ (
I ~J
@
Fence B: 88-inch high fence (72-inch high
solid fence, 12-inch high lattice and 4-inch
decorative caps) in the interior side yard
property line.
.....
. k=---
//
-----.--------
Fence C: 76-inch high fence (72-inch high
solid fence with 4-inch decorative caps) on the
street side yard property line. Currently this
fence is at 88-inches high.
tE:N<>Æ W!I;f
Site and Architectural Review Committee: At its meeting of March 25, 2003, the Site and
Architectural Review Committee recommended that the property owner continue to work with
staff and revise the application before the Planning Commission meeting. The Site and
Architectural Review Committee was concerned about the height of Fence C, pedestrian and
vehicular safety from the gate swinging into the public right-of-way and vehicular use of the
substandard secondary driveway. The property owner submitted a revised application to the
Community Development Department on April 18, 2003, which included removal of the lattice
on Fence C and elimination of the gate over the driveway. (see applicants letter in the Planning
Commission Staff Report attachment No.4). This would bring the fence height on the street side
down to six feet four inches.
Planning Commission Meeting: At its meeting of May 13, 2003, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 3493 approving a Fence Exception to allow Fence A, Band C for the
property located at 1058 Lenor Way. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve
the application subject to the conditions of approval. (see the Planning Commission Staff Report
attachment No.4). These conditions required the removal of the lattice, gate and hardware on
Fence C and the reconstruction of Fence C over the driveway, as indicated by the revised
proposal. This would require extending the fence design across the driveway, including the
kickboard at the base of the fence to match the remainder of the existing fence. The kickboard is
a solid board that runs horizontally across the bottom of the fence that supports the bottom rail of
the fence. Kickboards are typically used for the construction of fences but not gates.
At the meeting the applicant, who has appealed the Planning Commission decision, spoke in
opposition to the conditions of approval. The main objections addressed at the hearing dealt with
the removal of lattice on Fence C and reconstruction of Fence C over the driveway. (see
Attachment No.6).
City Council Report - July L, 2003
Appeal of the condition of approval of PLN2003-29 - 1058 Lenor Way
Page 3
Planning Commission: The Planning Commission in approving the project, found that the
proposed fences, as conditioned, result in a desirable fence design, does not impair pedestrian or
vehicular visibility and will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
Appeal: On May 23, 2003, the City Clerk received a letter of appeal from Dustin Castro and
Melissa Ferro, property owners and applicants, appealing the Planning Commission's decision to
approve the Fence Exception (pLN2003-29). The applicants are appealing the removal of lattice
on Fence C (Condition I-c) and the addition of a kickboard over the portion of the driveway
(Condition 2). A copy of the applicant's appeal letter is attached (see Attachment No.7).
AL TERNA TIVES
The alternative actions the City Council may take are listed on page one under "City Council
Action."
FISCAL IMPACTS
None.
Attachments:
1. Draft City Council Resolution approving an appeal and overturning the Planning
Commission approval of a Fence Exception (PLN2003-29).
2. Draft City Council Resolution denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission
approval of a Fence Exception (PLN2003-29).
3. Draft City Council Resolution denying the Planning Commission approval of a Fence
exception (PLN2003-29).
4. Planning Commission Staff Report of May 13, 2003.
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3493.
6. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 13, 2003.
7. Appeal Letter submitted by Dustin Castro and Melissa Ferro on May 23, 2003.
Prepared by:
~~~
Reviewed by:
~~
.....
Sh n Fierro, Community Development Director
Approved by:
Campbell Express, June 25, 2003 - .hIe 5
o~ . ût1t
A.;..,',."....',.....,.".."."....,~'.,.~.',..."..'.,.'....."." .
!::: ~ .
U r'"
0 0
~ """
~t" . ..' ..~
. ' ,(,
().tCH ,....9.
. ~ ~ .
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of
the City of Campbell' has set the hour of 7:30 p.m., or shortly
thereafter, on Tueeday, July 15, 2003 in the City Han Council
Chamber, 70 N. First Street, CampbeR, California, as the time
and place for a Public Hearing to consider an AppeaJ of the
Planning Convni88iOn decision regarding the AppIicaIIOÍt of Mr.
Dustin Castro for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-29) tQ,,~, .
52-inch high fence within the 15-foot front yard seItMick, an 88-
inch high interior side yard fence and 76-Inch high stI88t
sideyard fence on property owned by Mr. Dustin castro Ioc:at8d
at 1058 Lenor Way in an R-1-6 (Single Family Re8identiB1)
6,000 square foot minmum lot size) Zoning DistrIå. Two
Conditions of Approv8I regarding the removal of lattice 8fId
addition of kickbo8~ are being appealed.
Interested persons may appear and lie heard at this
hearing. Please be 8dviIed that If you c:btMì." the n8tunt of
any of the above project in court. you maybe IimI8d to,rØing
only those issueS you or someone else rai8ed at the PublIc
Hearing described in this notice, or in written œrrespondenœ
delivered to the City CIertt at or prior to the hearing. QuestIons
may be addressed to the Community Development DepaJ1ment
at (408) 866-2140.
In compliance with the Americans with DlsabiIltiM
Ad, listening assistive devices are available fOr an meetings
held in the Council Chambers. If you require 8CCOI"I1mOdaIi,
please contact the City Clerk'sOlliœ at 866-2117 at least one
week in advance of the meeting.
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF CAMPBELL
ANNE BYBEE
CITY CLERK
Publish: June 25, 2003
Public Notice 3588
RE\. ZIVED
MAY 2 3 2003
CITY. CLERK'S O.EEICB
Friday, May 23, 2003
To: City of Campbell City Council
From: Dustin James Castro & Melissa Mia Ferro
Re: PLN2003-29-1058 Lenor Way-Fence Exception
Cc: CIn
C ilL"~
~~ ilur-ch,
(~t~
71'5e~J
We are appealling two of the conditions that the City of Campbell planning commission
adopted on May 13, 2003. The conditions that we are appealling are as follows:
Dear City Council;
Item A. Removal of lattice on Fence C
Item B. Addition of kickboard
The reason that we are appealing the planning commission's decision is because we
feel that removing the decorative lattice will result in an undesirable layout for the fence.
Instead of the fence looking custom and expensive, it will look more like a good neighbor
fence. The lattice on the top of the fence is square lattice. It is not double or triple lattice
that is used for privacy. The only reason that the lattice was installed was to add to the
aesthetic appeal of the fence. We consulted with a general contractor and also a number
of neighbors before building the fence and the general consensus among the
neighborhood is that the fence looks beautiful with lattice and caps. We added the
decorative element to make the fence appealing to our neighbors.
The whole block.ofLenor Way with the exception of one neighbor feels that the
lattice is the nicest part of the fence. Removal of the lattice would go against what the
people want who live on our block. There are 34 houses on Lenor Way. Out of those 34,
there are 2 neighbors on the whole block that don't like the fence. One neighbor, Julie,
has stated that she does not mind the lattice; as long as there are no safety issues with it. I
have enclosed the letter that she wrote to us two weeks ago. Her concern in the
beginning was that if we put up a fence her roses would not get sunlight. She did not
want her flowers to be in the shade. I explained to her that, it would not hinder her
flowers. Her roses are now flourishing. They are looking better than last year according
to the neighbors. In discussions with Julie we learned that her other issue with the fence
was that she wanted to put up a fence 10 years ago on her property. Julie wanted to do
the same thing we did. Julie stated that the reason that she wanted to put up a fence on
the side of her house was because there were kids stealing ftuit from her trees. She told
us that she went to the city and they told her no. She said that if she tried to have a fence
put up and they told her no, then why should we able to. I tried to explain to her that she
could have a fence put up but she did not want to listen. She said no, and that I could not
have my way and then she went on to ~ell me that if we wanted to make changes to the
house we bought we should have bought a house somewhere else. The day that the fence
was being constructed I asked her to come over when the company was installing the
section of fence between our properties. I told Julie that I would leave the lattice off of
her side of the fence if that would make her happy. The fence contractor instructed her
that it would not look as good without the decorative element of the lattice. She agreed to
have the lattice put on her side and she even said that it looked good with lattice. In
conclusion, I feel we have made many attempts to please out neighbor Julie. I do not
think it is possible because she has looked negatively upon every improvement we have
made on our property. Julie has stated in her letter to us that at this point if the coucil did
not find a safety issue with the lattice on the fence then she would agree to leave it as it
is. This being said that leaves one neighbor that does not like the fence.
The other neighbor that dislikes the fence owns the home across the street from
fence C but he does not live there. He rents his house out, and the tenants that live there
approve of the fence. They also think the fence looks appealing. The owner of the
house, Paul, does not maintain the home. Out of every house on the block he owns the
most rundown house. Everyone in the neighborhood is continuously working hard to
improve the beauty of their property and the neighborhood. Paul is the only neighbor that
does not maintain his house. He is complaining simply because we are trying to improve
the neighborhood. So the only neighbor in question does not have to live with the fence
everyday and he is against it. The residents of Lenor way approve of it. We feel that the
majority and the residents that live on the street and look at it everyday should be the
deciding factor.
We did try to appease Paul and had him over to our house to discuss the fence.
He told me that "the lattice is the nicest part of the fence". He also said "I would not
want you to remove the lattice. It would not look as good". He said that he wanted me to
submit a contract to him enforcing his rules on the fence. Paul stated that he wanted me
to plant and maintains greenery on 80% of the fence at all times. Greenery meaning ivy,
vines, etc. He wanted there to be a strict fine payable to him if I did not follow through.
Paul also wanted there to be a clause that if we sold the house the fence would be
removed. Another one of his "conditions" was that there was to be no parking oftrailers
or boats in the area behind fence C. He wanted strict fines if his "conditions" were not
met. Melissa and I thought that what he was asking was completely unacceptable. We
were not going to agree to any of that. This made him angry and he swore to fight the
fence.
Enclosed you will also find pictures of some houses in our neighborhood that
have tall fences. One of them is on the opposite comer of our house. There fence is
taller than 8 feet. They are also on a comer and have the same design layout as we do.
Another picture is from a house down the street that has tall fences next to his driveway
and also a swing out double gate. Same as we do currently. Please review these pictures
and take them in to consideration in making your decision.
On April 13, 2003 we went in to see Melinda and Geoff. They recommended that
we write a proposal letter to the planning commission because, they felt that the planning
commission would not approve the fence exception. So we wrote the proposal based on
what the staff said would not happen not based on what we wanted. After writing the
letter we went and asked the neighbors, and they stressed there concerns about removing
the lattice. We then changed our mind about are proposal, but it was too late. We
strongly urge the counsel to let us keep the nicest part of the fence.
The other condition that we are appealing is changing the fence where the gates
are. On the 46 foot section of fence there is an 18" area left for planting. This section
also has the kickboard on the bottom of the fence. We have filled that area with dirt and
planted flowers, bushes and trees to dress up and follow through with what the planning
commission has asked for. You cannot see the kickboard on the fence it is covered by
dirt and landscaping. Ifwe demo the lower section of the fence where the gates are and
add a kickboard to the fence it will not match with the other section of fence. There is a
driveway there and no place to landscape. This will just stick out if we change the design
of the fence. Having a kickboard run on top of pavement will not look good. This
section of the fence should be left the way it is. Changing the current design of the fence
will not result in a desirable layout.
In conclusion, what we are appealing is 12" of decorative lattice. Does the city
really feel that removing the most decorative part of the fence is going to improve the
layout? We purchased our first home here in Campbell on Lenor way in August of last
year. In the last 7 months we have done so much to the house to the appearance of our
house. Trying to improve it in any way we can. We have invested more than $50,000 in
remodeling and maintenance. We spent over $7000 on the fences alone. We ask that you
reconsider condition (a) and (b).
Melissa and I are getting married June 21 st 2003. We will not be available to
attend a City Counsel meeting until July 15th.
Attachment #6
Planning Commission Minute~ {. May 13, 2003
Page 29
6.
PLN2003-29
Castro, D.
Continued Hearing (from April 8, 2003) to consider the application of
Mr. Dustin Castro for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-29) to allow a 52-
inch high fence within the 15-foot front yard setback, an 88-inch high
interior side yard fence and 76-inch high street sideyard fence on property
owned by Mr. Dustin Castro located at 1058 Lenor Way in an R-1-6
(Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning
District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically
Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission decision final in 10
calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Project
Planner: Melinda Denis, Planner I
Ms. Melinda Denis, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
. Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Fence Exception for 1058 Lenor Way, a
standard comer lot.
. Described the fence sections as Fence A, Fence B and Fence C.
. Stated that required letters of consent were not obtained from all adjacent property owners.
. Informed that the applicant will be required to remove the gate and hardware from Fence C
and install a post. This fence will be required to have a consistent design.
. Said that Condition l-C should be amended to read "within 30 days of approval, subject to
review and approval by the Community Development Director."
Commissioner Alderete pointed out that this fence is already installed and asked how long it
has been in place.
Planner Melinda Denis replied since early March. The Fence Exception request was filed on
March 14th.
Commissioner Alderete questioned whether the applicant had discussed his fencing plans with
his neighbors before building this fence.
Commissioner Doorley presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as
follows:
. SARC reviewed this project on April 29, 2003, and was supportive with the
recommendation that the streetside fence design be continued when the existing gate is
removed.
Chair Hernandez opened the Hearing for Agenda Item No 6.
Ms. Carol Osburn, 1019 Lenor Way, Campbell:
. Said that she is a 27 year resident of Lenor Way and that Dustin Castro moved in last fall.
. Stated that Mr. Castro has worked hard on his home improvement projects and has
constructed a beautiful fence that has cost lots of money to build.
. Added that she wished she had a fence as lovely as this one is.
. Said that she also understands the need for such a high fence since both her home and Mr.
Castro's has a pool in the rear yard. They need to ensure that no one enters their yards and
drowns in their pools resulting in a lawsuit.
. Said that Mr. Castro should be able to keep his fence as long as it complies with City
codes.
Planning Commission Minute~ ,¡ May 13, 2003
Page 30
Mr. Dustin Castro, 1058 Lenor Way, Campbell:
. Said that he has a couple of issues, including the requirement that the fence design stay the
same all the way down.
. Advised that he has plans to plant along the fence.
. Pointed out that he added lattice for decorative purposes since a six-foot good neighbor
fence is rather boring looking.
. Agreed that the fence is taller than it is supposed to be but argued that the fence would not
look as good as it does without this lattice.
. Said he has no problem with the requirement to remove the gate hardware.
. Said he is available to answer any questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Doorley pointed out that the reason to recommend installation of the kickboard
is to assure that the use of the gate is permanently prevented. Said that the fence will still jog
out but will have the same material appearance.
Commissioner Rocha asked Mr. Castro if he was aware of the fencing regulations prior to
constructing his fence.
Mr. Dustin Castro said he knew what he wanted to do. Reiterated that a regular six-foot fence
does not look appealing without the lattice.
Commissioner Rocha agreed that this fence is nice but that it is a tall fence.
Commissioner Gibbons pointed out the site complexities with the two driveways and two
garages. Said that SARC discussed this issue and did not want to allow a dangerous situation
with the gates swinging outward directly onto the sidewalk.
Mr. Dustin Castro said that he does not plan to park vehicles in the garage on the side as it is
full including his pool table. Pointed out that one neighbor willing to support his application
had attended this evening but had to leave at 11:30 p.m.
Commissioner Rocha asked Mr. Castro if he also built his neighbor's fence.
Mr. Dustin Castro replied that they split the cost together but had a company install it.
Mr. Paul Porrovecchio, Owner, 1021 Lenor Way, Campbell:
. Said that he has safety concerns with the potential of the gate being used again in the
future.
. Reminded that the gate opens directly onto the sidewalk.
. Asked that anything possible be done to make this fencing uniform.
. Said that it would be nice to put "teeth" into this approval.
. Asked what the repercussions would be if the gate hardware is returned to make the gate
functioning again.
City Attorney William Seligmann replied that the primary recourse is to revoke the approval of
the Fence Exception and the matter becomes a Code Enforcement action.
Planning Commission Minute~ {May 13, 2003
Page 31
Director Sharon Fierro cautioned that Code Enforcement takes time to resolve.
Commissioner Doorley pointed out that the gate would no longer be functional with the
changes required under the Conditions of Approval.
Commissioner Jones asked why the gate is considered dangerous.
Director Sharon Fierro replied it is dangerous because it opens onto the sidewalk and there is
no way to see if people are on the sidewalk when opening this gate.
Mr. Dustin Castro:
. Said he agrees to the changes requested to make the gate into a fence with a post being cut
into the concrete.
. Added that he wants a four-foot wide gate. Such a gate is not big enough for a car.
. Added that Mr. Porrovecchio's tenants are okay with his fence.
Planner Melinda Denis said that staff is supportive of one four-foot wide gate.
Commissioner Rocha asked if this gate would open onto the property rather than out into the
sidewalk.
Planner Melinda Denis replied yes.
Mr. Paul Porrovecchio pointed out that weeks prior to this fence installation, Mr. Castro was
well aware of the fencing requirements.
Commissioner Alderete asked if Mr. Porrovecchio is saying that Mr. Castro was aware before
he began construction.
Mr. Paul Porrovecchio said that when it became obvious what was being constructed, his
tenant made him (Mr. Porrovecchio) aware of the situation. His tenant was worried about the
safety of his two young children. Said that he had warned Mr. Castro that he would never be
supportive of more than a six-foot high fence.
Planner Melinda Denis agreed that staff had spoken with Mr. Porrovecchio after the fence was
constructed and that he was supportive of up to a six-foot fence with four-inch decorative caps
but that he would have problems with more than six-feet in height.
Commissioner Alderete:
. Expressed concern that the Commission is once again considering a Fence Exception after
the fact, once the fence has already been installed.
. Questioned how often this is truly done as an unwitting mistake.
. Said that this fence is quite a bit over the allowable fence height and he believes Mr. Castro
was aware of that fact.
. Cautioned that approving such drastic exceptions offers incentives to people to go outside
of approved Ordinances.
. Asked when is it time to say no.
Planning Commission Minute~ 1'May 13, 2003
Page 32
.
Said that people should not just build what they want, how they want it.
Commissioner Rocha agreed. Said he would like to see such issues handled by staff.
Commissioner Alderete clarified that such an exception must come before the Planning
Commission when an adjacent neighbor does not agree to the expanded height.
Commissioner Rocha expressed concern about having to "play Solomon."
Commissioner Francois said that what SARC is asking for is not unreasonable. Said he does
not condone going over the Ordinance allowances but questioned if it is reasonable to require
Mr. Castro to take his fence down. This is a dilemma.
Commissioner Doorley pointed out that it appears clear that no one is eager to make the motion
to approve this.
Commissioner Alderete:
. Asked at what point does the Commission need to say no. Should the Commission wait
until a fence is three feet higher than allowed.
. Said that this installation seems to be over the line, especially if the applicant knew, prior to
construction of the fence, that he was constructing something against Ordinance.
. Cautioned that there will be more of these types of situations.
Commissioner Francois asked staff what the applicant would have to do if this request is
denied.
Director Sharon Fierro:
. Said the applicant could appeal to Council or remove the extra height of fence. If the
Council upholds the denial, the applicant's only choice is to remove it. Staff is
recommending a compromise to reduce the fence on the east and south sides of the
property to six-feet and to permanently close the gate and make it into a fence.
. Said that a seven foot height is appropriate where the neighbors agree and six feet in height
is appropriate where the neighbors do not agree to go higher.
Commissioner Alderete asked what occurs if neighbors agree to a fence height and how a
property owner should proceed with plans for new fencing.
Director Sharon Fierro:
. Said that a property owner should inform his neighbors that he intends to build a fence.
. Added that if the shared property owner agrees to sign off on the proposed fence, approvals
can be made at staff level. This occurs most of the time.
. Stated that in the case that a neighbor does not agree to extended heights, the fence must be
constructed to Code or a Fence Exception must be processed and brought to Hearing before
the Planning Commission prior to construction of the fence. Again, few such Exceptions
typically reach that level, as most neighbors are able to come to an agreement.
Planning Commission Minute.. ~'May 13,2003
Page 33
Commissioner Jones asked for clarification that the applicant has agreed to remove the lattice
and keep the decorative caps.
Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley pointed out the letter from Mr. Castro dated April 14th.
Commissioner Alderete asked if this could be approve administratively if all neighbors agreed
to the fence height.
Director Sharon Fierro said not the gate issue. As Director, she has the ability to require that
this issue go to the Planning Commission for consideration, as there is a sight line visibility
issue.
Commissioner Gibbons reminded that the issues are both fence height and outswing of the gate
onto the public sidewalk.
Commissioner Alderete asked if seven-foot height is an issue.
Director Sharon Fierro said notif all involved neighbors agree.
Planner Melinda Denis advised that the City's Traffic Engineer has deemed the gate a
pedestrian safety issue.
Commissioner Gibbons suggested that the side yard fence be brought into compliance to the
six-foot height with the four-inch decorative posts.
Commissioner Jones said that the applicant, per his letter, has agreed to remove the lattice and
make the gate into a permanent fence section.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Jones,
the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3493 approving a Fence
Exception (PLN2003-29) to allow a 52-inch high fence within the 15.foot front
yard setback, an 88-inch high interior side yard fence and 72-inch high street
sideyard fence with four-inch decorative posts (for a total height of 76-inches)
with one four-foot wide gate, on property owned by Mr. Dustin Castro located at
1058 Lenor Way and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under
CEQA, by the following roll call vote:
A YES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Hernandez and Jones
NOES: Gibbons and Rocha
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Hernandez reminded that this action is final in calendar 10 days unless appealed in
writing to the City Clerk.
--
0«' . CA~ .
. JO<S'>
t- ~
- 'r"'"
U r-
CAMPBELL
,.\ >.
1- "-
<' ,-'
.ORCH""\).
c:-
o
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department
May 15, 2003
Dustin J. Castro
1058 Lenor Way
San Jose, CA 95128
Re:
PLN2003-29 -1058 Lenor Way- Fence Exception
Dear Applicant:
Please be advised that at its meeting of May 13, 2003, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 3493 granting a Fence Exception on the above referenced property.
This action is effective in ten calendar days and is subject to the Conditions of Approval, unless
appealed in writing to the City Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, May 23, 2003. California Code of
Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, governs the time within which judicial review of this decision
must be sought.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2140.
Sincerely,
(¡1&1üt;'¡~ ~
Melinda Denis
Planner I
Cc:
Frank Mills, Building Division
Chris Veargason, County Fire Department
Matthew J ue, Public Works Department
70NorthFirstStreet. Campbell,California95008-1436. TEL408.866.2140. FAX408.87I,5140. TDD408,866.2790
Attachment #5
RESOLUTION NO. 3493
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL GRANTING A FENCE EXCEPTION (pLN2003-
29) TO ALLOW A 52-INCH HIGH FENCE WITHIN THE IS-FOOT
FRONT YARD SETBACK, AN 88-INCH HIGH INTERIOR SIDE YARD
FENCE AND A 72-INCH HIGH STREET SIDEYARD FENCE (WITH
FOUR-INCH DECORATIVE CAPS FOR A TOTAL HEIGHT OF 76
INCHES) AS WELL AS ALLOWING ONE FOUR-FOOT WIDE GATE
ALONG THE STREET SIDEY ARD FENCE ON PROPERTY OWNED
BY MR. DUSTIN CASTRO LOCATED AT 1058 LENOR WAY IN AN R-
1-6 (SINGLE FAMll.. Y RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICATION
OF MR. DUSTIN CASTRO. FILE NO. PLN2003-29.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows
with respect to application PLN2003-29:
1. The proposed front yard fence exception (Fence A) consists of a solid wooden fence with a
height of 45 inches and decorative caps of 52 inches above the existing grade of the subject
property where a 42-inch fence is typically permitted.
2. The proposed interior side yard fence exception (Fence B) consists of a solid wooden fence
with a height of 72 inches, lattice with a height of 84 inches and decorative caps of 88 inches
above the existing grade of the subject property where a 72-inch fence is typically permitted.
3. The proposed street side yard fence exception (Fence C) consists of a solid wooden fence
with a height of 72 inches and decorative caps of 76 inches above the existing grade of the
subject property where a 72-inch fence is typically permitted.
4. The proposed fence height extension is not detrimental to the visual appearance of the subject
fence with the height extension and other approved fences on the property.
5. The proposed fence height extension enhances the aesthetic appearance by providing
additional variation and wood details.
6. The proposed fence height extension does not impair pedestrian or vehicular visibility.
7. The project qualifies as a Categorically Exempt project per Section 15303(e), Class 3 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that:
1. The requested fence exception does not impair pedestrian or vehicular safety.
Planning Commission Resolut No. 3493
PLN2003-29 -- 1058 Lenor Way- Fence Exception
Page 2
2. The requested fence exception results in a desirable fence design.
3. The requested fence exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such
proposed use, or will be not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves a Fence
Exception (pLN2003-29) to allow a 52-inch high fence within the IS-foot front yard setback, an
88-inch high interior side yard fence and a 72-inch high street sideyard fence (with four-inch
decorative caps for a total height of 76 inches) as well as one four-foot wide gate along the street
sideyard fence on property owned by Mr. Dustin Castro located at 1058 Lenor Way in an R-I-6
(Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District, subject to the
following conditions:
Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works
Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with
all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and
regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the
applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with á11 applicable Codes or
Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development
and are not herein specified.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. PrOtect Approval: Project approval shall substantially comply with the applicant's revised
request dated April 13, 2003, Site Plan received on April 18, 2003, exhibits and photographs.
A fence exception is granted for the property located at 1058 Lenor Way to allow:
a. Fence A: 52 inch high solid wood fence with decorative posts and caps within the fifteen
foot front yard setback
b. Fence B: 88 inch high solid wood fence with lattice and decorative caps on the interior
side property line
c. Fence C: 72 inch high solid wood fence with four-inch decorative caps (for a total height
of 76 inches) as well as one four-foot wide gate along the street sideyard property line of
the subject property, which shall be modified within 30 days of approval to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
2. The applicant shall remove the gate and hardware from Fence C and install a permanent post
in the center of the street side yard driveway. The design of the fence over the portion of the
street side yard driveway shall be the same design as the remaining street side yard fencing.
3. Any modification to Fence C, street side yard fence, to allow for vehicular use of the
driveway is not approved as part of the Fence Exception and would require a separate Fence
Exception approval. '
Planning Commission Resolut' - No. 3493
PLN2oo3-29 -- 1058 Lenor Way- Fence Excéptiôri
Page 3
4. The applicant shall install and maintain landscaping along and within the one-foot wide
planting area on the street side of Fence C.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 2003, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Hernandez and Jones
NOES: Commissioners: Gibbons and Rocha
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None
ATTEST: ~þ
,
Sharon Fierro, Secretary
....--
--""
ITEM NO.6
..l,~. 0«' . CA4tPð
!::: <;.
U r-
0 0
... ...
~<' ~
.0 ."
~CH.....Q
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
May 13, 2003
PLN2003-29
Castro, D.
Continued hearing to consider the application of Mr. Dustin Castro for a
Fence Exception (PLN2003-29) to allow a 52-inch high fence within the 15-
foot front yard setback, an 88-inch high interior side yard fence and a 76-
inch high street side yard fence on property owned by Mr. Dustin Castro
located at 1058 Lenor Way in an R-I-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000
square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
Adopt a resolution, incorporating the attached findings, approving a fence exception for a fence
to allow a 52-inch high fence within the IS-foot front yard setback, an 88-inch high interior side
yard fence and a 76-inch high street sideyard fence on property located at 1058 Lenor Way,
subject to the attached conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this project is categorically exempt
under Section 15303(e) Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act, (New Construction
or Conversion of Small Structures)
DISCUSSION
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a fence exception to allow:
1. Fence A: 52-inch high stepped fence (45-inch high solid fence with 7-inch decorative
caps) within the IS-foot front yard setback on the interior side yard property line.
2. Fence B: 88-inch high fence (72-inch high solid fence, 12-inch high lattice and 4-
inch decorative caps) in the interior side yard property line.
3. Fence C: 76-inch high fence (72-inch high solid fence with 4 inch decorative caps)
on the street sideyard property line.
Background: The subject property is a standard corner lot located on the corner of Lenor Way
and Lenor Way just west of its intersection with Central Avenue. It was brought to the attention
of the Community Development Department that a fence exceeding the height requirements was
constructed on the subject property. The applicant was notified by the Community Development
Department to lower the fence to 6'-0" to meet the requirements or submit an application for a
fence exception. A fence exception application was submitted on March 14, 2003 and was
scheduled for the March 25, 2003 Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) and April
8, 2003 Planning Commission (PC) meeting. Due to the concerns raised at SARC, the applicant
-
Staff Report - Planning CouJ1I1Ìssion Meeting of May 13, 2003
PLN2003-29 - 1058 Lenor Way
Page 2 of 3
requested a continuance to the May 13, 2003 PC meeting in order to have adequate time to revise
the application. The applicant has worked with staff and adjacent neighbors to revise the
application.
ANAL YSIS
Fence Exception Requirements: Under Chapter 21.59.090 of the Campbell Municipal Code,
fences not higher than three and one-half feet (42 inches) in height are permitted up to and along
the front and interior side property lines of standard corner lots in the front fifteen feet of the
residence. Fences higher than 42 inches in height require approval of a Fence Exception. A
fence not more than six feet in height may be allowed up to and along the interior side property
line of standard corner lots, setback fifteen feet from the front property line. A fence not more
than six feet in height may be allowed up to and along the street side property line except within
the triangular area formed by measuring thirty feet along the front and side property lines along
the right-of-way from their "extended" intersection and connecting these two points. Fences
higher than six feet in height require approval of a Fence Exception.
The Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Public Works Director, may approve fences
exceeding the requirements when it is determined that the change would not impair pedestrian
and vehicular safety and that it will result in a more desirable layout and will not be detrimental
to the public welfare. The property owner must submit letters of consent from all adjacent
property owners prior to any approval. If one or more property owners objects to the fence
exception, the application must be referred to the Planning Commission.
Referral to Planning: Commission: Letters of consent were obtained from property owners at
1019, 1025 and 1068 Lenor Way. The City did not receive a letter of consent from the adjacent
property owner at 1021 Lenor Way to the south and 1059 Central Avenue to the east.
Consequently, this matter is being referred to the Planning Commission for consideration.
Fence HeightlDesign:
1. Fence A: 52-inch high stepped fence within the fifteen foot front yard setback
consisting of a 45-inch solid board good neighbor fence with 7-inch decorative
copper caps, exceeding the maximum height by 10 inches.
2. Fence B: 88-inch high fence on the interior side yard property line consisting of a 72-
inch high solid board good neighbor fence with 12-inch high lattice and 4-inch
decorative copper caps, exceeding the maximum height by 16 inches.
3. Fence C: 76-inch high fence on the street side yard property line consisting of a 72-
inch high solid board good neighbor fence with 4 inch decorative copper caps,
exceeding the maximum height by 4 inches. The existing gate and hardware will be
removed and a permanent post installed in the driveway allowing the solid board
good neighbor fence design to be continued. The existing lattice on the street side
yard will be removed and the decorative caps lowered to 4 inches above the fence.
The applicant is requesting approval of the fence exception to allow the stepped fence within the
fifteen foot front yard setback, fence on the interior side property line and fence on the street side
property line.
-.
Staff Report - Planning Cûu1l1lÌssion Meeting of May 13, 2003
PLN2003-29 - 1058 Lenor Way
Page 3 of 3
Staff Recommendation: In accordance with the findings specified in the fence provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance, Staff finds that the requested exception does not impair pedestrian or
vehicular safety and that the increased fence height does not create an undesirable site design or
layout.
Site and Architectural Review Committee: The Site and Architectural Review Committee
reviewed this application at its meeting of April 29, 2003 and was supportive of the requested
exception and recommended the design of the fence on the street side property line be continued
when the driveway gate is replaced. The design consists of a horizontal kick board, vertical
board on board and decorative caps.
Attachments:
1. Findings for Approval
2. Conditions of Approval
3. Site Plan
4. Fence Diagram
5. Applicant's Statement
6. Letters of Consent
7. Photo Exhibits
8. Location Map
Prepared by: \/l!dw ~ y) ttØJ
Melinda Denis, Planner I
~~
Approved by. " ~
G ff I. dley, Senior Planner
--
Attachment #1
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. PLN2003-29
SITE ADDRESS:
APPLICANT:
P.C. MEETING:
1058 Lenor Way
Dustin Castro
May 13, 2003
Findings for Approval of a Fence Exception at 1058 Lenor Way.
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2003-29:
1.
The proposed front yard fence exception (Fence A) consists of a solid wooden fence with a
height of 45 inches and decorative caps of 52 inches above the existing grade of the subject
property where a 42 inch fence is typically permitted.
2.
The proposed interior side yard fence exception (Fence B) consists of a solid wooden fence
with a height of 72 inches, lattice with a height of 84 inches and decorative caps of 88
inches above the existing grade of the subject property where a 72 inch fence is typically
permitted.
3.
The proposed street side yard fence exception (Fence C) consists of a solid wooden fence
with a height of 72 inches and decorative caps of 76 inches above the existing grade of the
subject property where a 72 inch fence is typically permitted.
4.
The proposed fence height extension is not detrimental to the visual appearance of the
subject fence with the height extension and other approved fences on the property.
5.
The proposed fence height extension enhances the aesthetic appearance by providing
additional variation and wood details.
6.
The proposed fence height extension does not impair pedestrian or vehicular visibility.
7.
The project qualifies as a Categorically Exempt project per Section 15303(e), Class 3 (New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that:
1.
The requested fence exception does not impair pedestrian or vehicular safety.
2.
The requested fence exception results in a desirable fence design.
3.
The requested fence exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such
proposed use, or will be not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in
the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.
--
--
Attachment #2
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PLN2003-29
SITE ADDRESS:
APPLICANT:
P.C. MEETING:
1058 LenorWay
Dustin Castro
May 13, 2003
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is required to meet the
following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of
California. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with
all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California which
pertain to this development and are not herein specified.
1. Project Approval: Project approval shall substantially comply with the applicant's revised
request dated April 13, 2003, Site Plan received on April 18, 2003, exhibits and photographs.
A fence exception is granted for the property located at 1058 Lenor Way to allow:
a. Fence A: 52 inch high solid wood fence with decorative posts and caps within the
fifteen foot front yard setback
b. Fence B: 88 inch high solid wood fence with lattice and decorative caps on the
interior side property line
c. Fence C: 76 inch high solid wood fence with decorative caps on the street side
property line of the subject property
2. The applicant shall remove the gate and hardware from Fence C and install a permanent post
in the center of the street side yard driveway. The design of the fence over the portion of the
street side yard driveway shall be the same design as the remaining street side yard fencing.
3. Any modification to Fence C, street side yard fence, to allow for vehicular use of the
driveway is not approved as part of the Fence Exception and would require a separate Fence
Exception approval.
4. The applicant shall install and maintain landscaping along and within the one-foot wide
planting area on the street side of Fence C.
Attachment #5
City of Campbell
Community Development Department
Attn: Melinda Denis
70 North First St.
RECEIVED
Campbell, CA 95008
APR 1 8 2003
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPT.
Reference: Addendum / Proposal
Fence Construction
1058 Lenor Way - APN: 279 20 065
April 13, 2003
Dear City of Campbell:
Hello. Thank you for taking the time to review our proposal. On April
8, 2003, we met with staff to discuss various options with regard to our
fence. Melinda and Geoff were very helpful and a pleasure to work with.
Melinda and Geoff discussed with us the proposal from the planning
commission. We had a good brainstorming session and went home with a
lot to think about. Dustin and I would like to make a proposal regarding our
fence:
1. We are willing to remove the lattice and bring the fence height down
to six feet tall, as long as we are allowed to have 4-inch decorative
caps on the posts. So in other words, the fence would be six feet and
the posts would be cut down to 6'4", (the four inch allowance is for
the decorative caps).
2. In respect to the two swing out gates in front of our spare garage, we
are willing to make the two ten-foot wide gates into a solid,
permanent piece of fence that will not open. We would place a
permanent post in the center of the two sections, and remove all
existing hardware.
-
3. The length of the fence is a total of sixty-six feet long, forty-six of
which has a one foot wide planting area in front of it that we
purposely left in order to plant flowers and bushes. The section of the
fence with the gates does not have this area in front of it because we
had planned on one, having gates, and two, because there is a
cement driveway in that section. Along with making the gate section
a permanent fence we would like to propose that we be allowed to
leave that section where it is. We feel that moving the twenty-foot
section back, level with the forty-six feet of fence, would require some
major fence reconstruction. It would also look ugly because we could
not plant anything in that twenty-foot section, since it is paved. It
would damage the aesthetic appeal of the fence, which our neighbors
all love.
We submit this proposal to you with good faith. To briefly recap our
proposal:
1. We will remove the lattice but would like be allowed to keep the
decorative caps on the posts.
2. We will make the two ten-foot wide gates into a permanent fence with a
post in the center and remove all hardware.
3. We will plant flowers and bushes which will cover most the long section
of fence but we would like to be allowed to leave the 20-foot section, (the
gate area), where it is instead of setting it back.
We hope that you will find our proposal suitable. We have been working
with staff to come up with a proposal that will please everyone and we hope
that this one will. Thank you for your consideration and your time.
Sincerely,
Melissa Ferro & Dustin Castro
-
-,
March 7, 2003
City of Campbell
Attn: Tim Haley
70 North First St.
'Campbell, CA 95008
Reference: Fence Construction
1058 Lenor Way - APN: 279 20 Ocò?
Dear City of Campbell:
This letter is in support of the fence construction at 1058 Lenor Way. I
think that it looks good. It added to the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood as
well as the house.
Sincerely,
94..{d,~
J...e / an d  I O.sbu'rn
Print Name
0
5o.nJõ5~) CA Qs/:l8-'!-11 /
Address
March 7, 2003
City of Campbell
Attn: Tim Haley
70 North First St.
Campbell, CA 95008
Reference: Fence Construction
1058 Lenor Way - APN: 279 20 O(O~
Dear City of Campbell:
This letter is in support of the fence construction at 1058 Lenor Way. I
think that it looks good. It added to the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood as
well as the house.
Sincerely,
1!s /Æ:::.
1/ Srgnature
'z:y¡p I j) III CJð ;J
Prinl Name
I ¿) ~ '5 C-6U 0 /? t-v ,4--'1
-Š,J . C4 " 9..s-/.;lð
Address
,-
March 7. 2003
City of Campbell
Attn: Tim Haley
. .70 North First St.
Campbell. CA 95008
Reference: Fence Construction
1058 Lenor Way - APN: 279 20 Oc.??
Dear City of Campbell:
This letter is in support of the fence construction at 1058 Lenor Way. I
think that it looks good. It added to the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood as
well as the house.
Sincerely.
f~ t())~
S gnatur '
Š~MÚ£L f!.. (lJ6NS
Print Name
JO&g LENO{<.. wAy
~fN -J~ ,CA 95/&
Add ess
~
..l,.~0«' . CAII1~~
!::: ~
U r-
. .
--' ...
-s. "-
" ",'
.O~CHA"O'
-..
ý'
CAMPBELL
CITY OF CAMPBELL
c-
O
Community Development Department
May 2, 2003
NOTICE OF HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the time of
7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, on Tuesday, May 13, 2003, in the City Hall Council Chambers,
70 North First Street, Campbell, California, for a Continued Hearing (from April 8, 2003) to
consider the application of Mr. Dustin Castro for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-29) to allow a
52-inch high fence within the 15-foot front yard setback, an 88-inch high interior side yard fence
and 76-inch high street sideyard fence on property owned by Mr. Dustin Castro located at 1058
Lenor Way in an R-I-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning
District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be advised that if you
challenge the nature of the above project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this Notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Campbell Planning Commission at, or prior to, the
Public Hearing. Questions may be addressed to the Community Development Department at
(408) 866-2140.
Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals must be
submitted to the City Clerk in writing within 10 calendar days of an action by the Commission.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistive devices are available
for all meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation, please contact the
Community Development Department at (408) 866-2140, at least one week in advance of the
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL
SHARON FIERRO
SECRETARY
PLEASE NOTE:
When calling about this Notice,
please refer to File No. PLN2003-29
Address: 1058 Lenor Way
70 North First Street. Campbell, California 95008-1436 . TEL 408.866.2140 ' FAX 408.871.5140 . TOO 408.866.2790
April 22, 2003
Re:
PLN2003-29 - 1058 Lenor Way - Fence Exception
Dear Applicant:
Please be advised that the above-referenced application has been scheduled for the following
meetings:
Site and Architectural Review Committee Meeting
Date: Tuesday, April 29, 2003
Time: 7:15 p.m.
Location: Doetsch Conference Room, City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell
Planning Commission Meeting
Date: Tuesday, May 13,2003
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell
Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-
2140.
;;;¡b ~
Melinda Denis
Planner I
~:'
cc:
Dustin J. Castro (Applicant/Property Owner)
1058 Lenor Way
San Jose, CA 95128
70 North First Street. Campbell, California 95008-1436 . TEL 408,866.2 t 40 . FAX 408,87 t.5 t 40 ' Tim 408.866.2790
ITEM NO.3
CAMPBELL
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
APRIL 8, 2003
PLN 2003- 29
Castro, D.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Dustin Castro for a Fence
Exception (pLN 2003-29) to allow a 52-inch high fence within the IS-foot
front yard setback and 88-inch high street side yard, interior side yard and
rear yard fencing on property owned by Mr. Dustin Castro located at 1058
Lenor Way in an R-I-6 (Single-family residential, minimum 6,000 square
foot lot size) Zoning District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Grant a Continuance of PLN 2003-29 to the Planning Commission meeting of May 13,
2003 to allow the applicant additional time to prepare revised plans.
BACKGROUND
The Site and Architectural Review Committee (SARC) reviewed the proposed application for a
52-inch high fence within the IS-foot front yard setback and 88-inch high street side yard,
interior side yard and rear yard fencing. The SARC members had several concerns with the
proposed project and recommended two alternatives to the applicant. A continuance will allow
the applicant time to revise the plans and to address the concerns of the SARC members.
CURRENT STATUS
The applicant met with staff on April 1, 2003 to discuss the options proposed by the SARC
members. Staff will review revised plans to provide a recommendation to the Planning
Commission. The revised plans will be submitted for consideration at the Planning Commission
meeting of May 13, 2003.
A TT A CHMENTS:
1. Letter from Applicant
2. Location Map
Prepared by: Vltt-'Ûfdb~4 ~
Melinda Denis, Planner I
Approved b~I' B~ ~
I
Attachment #1
Planning Commjsion
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
March 31, 2003
Re: Fence exception at 1058 Lenor Way.
Dear Planning Commision;
We would like to request that Our application be continued until the next
Planning Comrrunision meeting. We are requesting this continuancp. in order to
have additional time to work with our neighbors and your staff to provide you
with the most accurate and detailed information possible. Thank you very much.
RECEIVED
APR 0 1 2003
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPT. I
April 2, 2003
1059 N. Central Avenue
San Jose, CA 95128-4109
City of Campbell
Community Development Department
Planning Commission
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008-1436
Sharon Fie"o, Secretary
I am Julie Kenney, have lived in my home at the comer of N. Central Avenue and Lenor
Way since 1967 and have enjoyed a friendly and cooperative neighborhood.
Mr. Castro bought the home behind mine last July. Several months ago, he
approached me and told of his plans for a high fence at the back of our side yards
extending to the sidewalk and west along the sidewalk to the west end of his house. I
asked whether he had talked to the City about this and he said that they had been out,
looked it over and approved of it to a height of 6 feet plus lattice. I could not understand
how this could be as a few years ago we had considered installing a fence along the
sidewalk in order to protect fruit and vegetables growing in the side yard. We were told
that it could not exceed 3 or 4 feet in height so we decided that would not be high
enough to keep people out and gave it up.
I told him that I did not like the idea of such a high fence at the back of my property
especially since it would shade my established rose garden which requires full sun.
And also, it would look out of place in the neighborhood where residents have kept
street-side fences at a low level.
When the contractor was building the fence, I asked Mr. Castro whether he had
obtained a permit from the City and he said that he had.
Previously, he had asked my permission to severely cut back the branches of my Crepe
Myrtle tree, as they were dropping leaves on his roof. I agreed that he could cut it back
to the property line-which he did. Now he wants to cut more from my side which he
thinks will damage the fence. If the fence were at a reasonable height, that branch
would be above it and cause no problem.
I hope that this matter can be settled with an amicable solution.
Thank you,
J~t::e~ey~
RECEIVED
,:\PR Ù 2 2003
CITY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPT.
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department
March 28, 2003
NOTICE OF HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the time of
7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, on Tuesday, April 8, 2003, in the City Hall Council Chambers,
70 North First Street, Campbell, California, for a Hearing to consider the application of Mr.
Dustin Castro for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-29) to allow a 52-inch high fence within the 15-
foot front yard setback and 88-inch high street side yard, interior side yard and rear yard fencing
on property owned by Mr. Dustin Castro located at 1058 Lenor Way in an R-I-6 (Single Family
Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District. This project is Categorically
Exempt.
Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be advised that if you
challenge the nature of the above project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this Notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Campbell Planning Commission at, or prior to, the
Public Hearing. Questions may be addressed to the Community Development Department at
(408) 866-2140.
Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals must be
submitted to the City Clerk in writing within 10 calendar days of an action by the Commission.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistive devices are available
for all meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation, please contact the
Community Development Department at (408) 866-2140, at least one week in advance of the
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL
SHARON FIERRO
SECRETARY
PLEASE NOTE:
When calling about this Notice,
please refer to File No. PLN2003-29
Address: 1058 Lenor Way
70 North First Street. Campbell, California 95008-1436 ' TEL 408.866.2140 ' FAX 408.871,5140 . TOO 408.866,2790
March 19, 2003
Re:
PLN2003-29 - 1058 Lenor Way - Fence Exception
Dear Applicant:
Please be advised that the above-referenced application has been scheduled for the following
meetings:
Site and Architectural Review Committee Meeting
Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2003
Time: 6:45 p.m.
Location: Doetsch Conference Room, City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell
Planning Commission Meeting
Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2003
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell
CAMPBELL
~
C)
Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-
2140.
Sincerely,
'mdwiD ~
Melinda Denis
Planner I
cc:
Dustin Castro (ApplicantJProperty Owner)
1058 Lenor Way
Campbell, CA 95008
70 North First Street. Campbell, California 95008-1436 . TEL 408.866.2 40 . FAX 408.871.5140 . TOO 408,866,2790
City of Campbell -- Community Development Department
70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008
MEMORANDUM
To:
Site and Architectural Review Committee
Date:
March 19,2003
From:
Melinda Denis, Planner I Mþ
Subject:
1058 Lenor Way - PLN 2003-29
Fence Exception
The Community Development Department was notified that the applicant constructed a fence
exceeding the six-foot height requirement. The applicant was notified by the Community
Development Department to reduce the height of the fence or submit an application for a Fence
Exception.
Proposal
The applicant is requesting approval of a Fence Exception to allow:
fencing over six feet in height on the northern property line.
fencing over six feet in height on the street side property line.
fencing over forty-two inches in height within the fifteen foot front yard setback on
the northern property line.
The fence design on the street side property line and between the neighbor to the north is a 7'-3
Y2" high "good neighbor" wood fence consisting of 5'-10" of wood, 1'-1" of lattice and a 4
IJ2"decorative cap on top. The fence design on the northern property line within the fifteen foot
front yard setback is a 4'-3 %" high "good neighbor" wood fence with decorative cap that
exceeds the requirement by 9 Y2". Please refer to the attached photos.
Plannim! Commission Review of Fence Exceptions
Fence Exceptions are reviewed by the Planning Commission when the applicant does not obtain
a letter of consent from adjacent property owners. The applicant has obtained a letter of consent
from the property owner of parcel #66, #63 and #18. The applicant did not receive a letter of
consent from the property owner of parcel #17 and #64. Please refer to attached Location Map.
In order to approve the Fence Exception the Planning Commission must find that the requested
Fence Exception:
1. Will not impair vehicular or pedestrian safety;
2. Will result in a more desirable site layout;
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.
Attachment: Letter of Request, Letters of Consent, Fencing Site Plan, Photos and Location Map
. ,
-
.' "
March 10, 2003
City of Campbell
Community Development Department
Attn: Tim Haley
70 North First St.
Campbell, CA 95008
Reference: Fence Construction
1058 Lenor Way - APN: 279 20 065
Dear City of Campbell:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to request a fence height
exception. We would like to request an exception for the following reasons:
1. Our house sits two feet up from the street. The side of the house where
the fence is located has three bedroom windows and a shower window.
Pedestrians walking past the side of the house can see directly into our
bathroom and bedrooms. There is absolutely no privacy without a fence.
A six foot fence did not provide any more privacy than having no fence at
all. A seven foot fence allows moderate privacy from passersby and
neighbors windows across the street. We are starting a family and feel
that we need privacy for us and our children and we feel that this fence
allows us that privacy and protection.
2. Our house is located on an inside comer of a long street. We do not have
the same privacy and yard space as a house located in the inner area of a
neighborhood. Our back yard has a rather large pool in it which takes up
most of the yard. Since we are going to start a family we need an area for
our family to be able to play and gather aside from our small backyard. A
1058 Lenor Way
Campbell, CA 95128
-
... "
side yard provides an excellent, private, safe place for our family to
gather.
Being allowed to have a seven foot fence is very important to us because it
gives us the privacy, security, and safety we need and it also allows us to make
full use of our property. We really appreciate you taking the time to review our
fence height exception request. We love living in Campbell and look forward to
being here for the rest of our lives. Everyday we strive to improve our home
and our neighborhood's aesthetic appeal for everyone in our community to
enjoy. Thank you kindly.
g'
I
1058 Lenor Way
Campbell, CA 95128