PC Min 06/22/2004
CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
7:30 P.M.
TUESDAY
JUNE 22, 2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting of June 22, 2004, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the
Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Doorley and the
following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Chair:
Vice Chair:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
George Doorley
Elizabeth Gibbons
Bob Alderete
Tom Francois
Joseph D. Hernandez
Michael Rocha
Bob Roseberry
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present:
Community
Development Director:
Senior Planner:
Planner I:
City Attorney
Recording Secretary:
Sharon Fierro
Geoff 1. Bradley
Melinda Denis
William Seligmann
Corinne A. Shinn
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: On motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Rocha,
the Planning Commission minutes of June 8, 2004, were approved as
submitted. (6-0-0-1; Commissioner Alderete abstained)
COMMUNICATIONS
1. Letter and packet of information regarding Agenda Item No.2.
AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
There were no agenda modifications or postponements.
ORAL REQUESTS
There were no oral requests.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2004
Page 2
***
PUBLIC HEARING
Chair Doorley read Agenda Item No.1 into the record.
1. PLN2004-55
Haas, T. R.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. T. Roger Haas for a
Site and Architectural Approval (PLN2004-55) to renew approval of
an antenna installation on the parapet of an existing office building on
property owned by Mr. Scott Cooley located at 700 W. Hamilton
Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is
recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt
under CEQA. Planning Commission decision final, unless appealed in
writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. Project Planner: Tim J
Haley, Associate Planner
Mr. Geoff 1. Bradley, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that a telecommunications antenna approval was originally granted in 1999 to
allow the placement of antennas on each corner of the building. This approval was valid
for five years.
· Added that the applicant is now seeking approval to keep these existing antennas and
removed one dummy set.
· Explained that there are other providers with antennas at this site, including one monopole
simulated tree antenna.
· Said that with this specific installation, there are three antennas placed at each corner as
well as a request for a minor equipment building addition.
· Said that as the Community Development Director has the authority to approve this request
at staff level but chose to bring it before the Planning Commission due to the number of
providers on this property.
· Recommended approval and that this project is found exempt under CEQA.
· Said he was available for questions.
Chair Doorley asked staff to clarify the concept of dummy antennas.
Senior Planner Geoff 1. Bradley explained that while only three sets of antennas was originally
required for this provider at this site, a fourth set was established as a dummy set to provide
symmetry in the installation. That fourth set is not necessary and proposed for removal.
Chair Doorley asked if this installation is actually considered stealth, adding that he thought
that stealth installations were built into a building and invisible while these are visible.
Senior Planner Geoff 1. Bradley explained that stealth means minimal appearance. While not
100 percent invisible, this installation still qualifies as a stealth installation.
Chair Doorley opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No 1.
Mr. Roger Haas, Project Applicant:
· Said that he is available for any questions.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2004
Page 3
. Stated that while not completely stealth, this installation is close to being stealth.
Chair Doorley closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.1.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner
Rocha, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3575 approving a
Site and Architectural Permit Approval (PLN2004-55) to renew approval
of an antenna installation on the parapet of an existing office building on
property owned by Mr. Scott Cooley located at 700 W. Hamilton Avenue,
and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Rocha and
Roseberry
None
None
None
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Chair Doorley advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk
within 10 days.
***
Chair Doorley read Agenda Item No.2 into the record.
2. PLN2004-15
Call, D.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Donald Call for a
Tentative Parcel Map (PLN2004-15) to allow the division of a parcel
into two residential lots on property owned by Mr. Donald Call located
at 1045 Hazel Avenue in an R-I-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning
District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed
Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Planning Commission decision
final, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days.
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 Tentative Parcel Map to divide a parcel
into two residential lots on property located at 1045 Hazel Avenue. One would be a
standard lot on Hazel and the second would be a flag lot.
· Described the site as being west of Craig Avenue and east of Pecan Avenue with
residential uses surrounding the site. The property is currently developed with a single-
family residence and detached garage.
· Stated that the Land Use designation is Low-Density Residential and the Zoning is R-I-6.
The property is subject to provisions of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan.
· Explained that the front lot requires a minimum of 6,000 square feet and a minimum lot
width of 60 feet. The rear flag lot must be a minimum of 6,600 square feet, exclusive of
the 15- foot wide access driveway.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2004
Page 4
. Added that the proposed front lot is 6,065 square feet with a 63-foot wide frontage and the
flag lot is 6,634 square feet with the 15- foot wide driveway that consists of 1,432 square
feet.
. Stated that this project meets the minimum lot size and widths established by the
Subdivision Ordinance and the requirements of the ST ANP.
· Explained that the applicant is proposing to maintain the existing home and remove the
existing detached garage and construct a new single-family residence on the flag lot in the
future.
· Stated that the Site and Architectural Review Permit for an R-I-6 zoned property does not
usually come before the Planning Commission. However, due to neighbor interest in this
project, staff has conditioned the requirement to bring the Site and Architectural Review
Permit to the Planning Commission for approval.
· Advised that an Administrative Hearing was held for this Parcel Map request and a number
of concerns were raised. Therefore, the Community Development Director elected to bring
this request to the Planning Commission for consideration.
· Recommended adoption of a resolution approving this Tentative Parcel Map to create two
residential lots, subject to the conditions of approval.
· Said that the applicant is available this evening.
Commissioner Alderete asked if there were any wells on this property.
Planner Melinda Denis replied no.
Chair Doorley questioned the referral by staff to the Planning Commission when the
Community Development Director has purview and is recommending approval to the
Commission.
Director Sharon Fierro replied that since there was significant controversy raised at the
Administrative Hearing, including a complaint about the time of that hearing in the afternoon
when some could not attend, she decided to refer this action to the Commission.
Chair Doorley opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No 2.
Mr. Don Call, Project Applicant and Property Owner, 1045 Hazel Avenue:
· Explained that he purchased this property with the knowledge that there was enough land
to split this parcel into two lots.
· Added that he lives is Saratoga and has eight children.
· Said that he likes this Hazel neighborhood with its proximity to the rest of the Valley and
his family home.
· Said that his children would live in the front house and build on the rear lot.
· Said that he values the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan and has no plans to seek any
Variances or Exceptions to its provisions.
· Stated that he feels he should be treated like anyone else. Only one neighbor was against
his subdivision at the Administrative Hearing. That neighbor refused to shake his hand or
discuss this project further with him following the conclusion of the Administrative
Hearing.
· Said that ifhe is unable to divide his property, he paid too much for it.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2004
Page 5
· Pointed out that the neighbor who objects has a large two-story located very close to the
property line, which seems to be a double standard on his part that does not make sense.
· Said that he would like to be this neighbor's friend and allow him to have some say in what
happens.
. Stated he was available for questions.
Commissioner Rocha asked Mr. Don Call how long he has owned this property.
Mr. Don Call replied since mid-January.
Commissioner Francois asked Mr. Don Call for a time frame for developing the back lot.
Mr. Don Call replied as quickly as possible, adding that he has two sons who are in
construction management. He said that he wants the roof in place before the winter rains
begin.
Commissioner Francois asked the plans for the front lot.
Mr. Don Call replied that one of his sons plans to move in there to supervise the construction
of the rear lot.
Mr. Paul Boyer, 757 Ecker Court, Campbell:
· Explained that he is an adjacent neighbor and that he has distributed a packet of
information this evening.
· Said that he has a strong objection to this subdivision as it is intrusive to his privacy,
destroys the rural flavor of the area and removes mature trees.
· Stated that the purpose of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan, adopted in 1993 and
updated in 1998, is to preserve the unique character of the San Tomas neighborhood. This
subdivision does not do that.
· Assured that he is not alone in neighborhood opposition. He had originally provided a
petition against this application and tonight he brings an updated petition with three
additional signatures, for a total of 13. Additionally, he has provided a map to summarize
where the objections are from.
· Said that the neighbors against this parcel map feel that this subdivision would degrade
their quality of life.
· Reported his belief that there are violations on this site.
· Requested denial of the Parcel Map.
Ms. Susan Yu, 1071 Hazel Avenue, Campbell:
· Said that she is fine with this proposed subdivision and that she does not understand the
one neighbor's concerns.
Ms. Judy Noyes, 1035 Hazel Avenue, Campbell:
· Said that she lives next door to the Call property on a similarly sized lot.
· Said that Ms. Yu lives directly behind Mr. Boyer.
· Advised that she has lived here for 27 years.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2004
Page 6
· Pointed out that Mr. Boyer constructed a two-story home without ever talking to anyone
pnor.
· Explained that when she originally moved here, they kept goats and chickens and had open
property without fences. However, they have adjusted when the fences went in over the
years.
. Said that she is fine with this proposed subdivision.
· Stated that Mr. Boyer had the opportunity to speak to this subdivision at the time the
property was for sale and prior to Mr. Call purchasing this lot to subdivide, explaining that
a brochure outlining the plans for subdivision was distributed.
· Added that Mr. Call paid more for this land with the understanding that it could be
subdivided.
· Stated that Mr. Boyer plans to go to the top and won't stop here. He wants things his own
way and he is changing their land.
· Complained that on a number of occasions in the past, Mr. Boyer called the police on her
daughter for noise issues. Once was during a party and other times when she was in the
backyard playing her guitar.
· Reminded that Mr. Boyer refused to speak with Mr. Call after the Administrative Hearing
and that she is bothered that one man can cause this problem.
Mr. Bill Noyes, 1035 Hazel Avenue, Campbell:
· Stated that he is 100 percent in favor of this project, as it will support property values.
· Explained that he owns a lot the same size and can do the same thing in the future.
· Pointed out that the lot now is in terrible condition and this project will double the value of
the property and have no negative impact.
· Said that this project will result in better houses and lots that are equal to or larger than the
lots the opposing neighbors have.
· Said that this project offers nothing but positive values and support with the development
of this lot.
Mr. Gary Zucconi, 1040 Hazelwood Avenue, Campbell:
· Said that he also speaks on behalf of Jean Cummings.
· Stated that they have no objections to this development but that they want their privacy
preserved with minimal exposure to windows overlooking their home and the inclusion of
a substantial and permanent fence.
· Added that the current fence is falling over.
· Said that it is probable that a double-story home would be constructed and that he has no
particular objection to that as long as privacy is preserved.
· Asked that the requirement conditioning the fence is included in the approval.
. Stated his availability for questions.
Mr. Paul Boyer:
· Said that he is shocked by Judy Noyes comments, which he said are made up, and takes
offense to them.
· Said that he never mentioned Hazel school or the possibility of three homes.
· Agreed that he complained a number of times about the Noyes daughter.
· Expressed his strong opposition, explaining that he moved here to have elbowroom.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2004
Page 7
Commissioner Hernandez asked Mr. Paul Boyer if he would prioritize his concerns, pointing
out the top two.
Mr. Paul Boyer:
· Said that he does not want a house crammed next to his home with windows looking into
his kids' rooms.
· Said that this proj ect would add to the noise in the area and puts an auto almost in his
backyard.
Commissioner Hernandez clarified that the concerns appear to be privacy and noise.
Mr. Paul Boyer agreed that the main issues are privacy, noise and space.
Chair Doorley stated that it is evident that there are neighbor issues here and asked all parties
to set those aside and consider this application.
Commissioner Rocha asked Mr. Paul Boyer how long he has lived in this neighborhood.
Mr. Paul Boyer replied since 1986.
Mr. Yu (with daughter, Susan), 1071 Hazel Avenue, Campbell:
· Explained his lack of proficiency in English and said his daughter would assist him in
addressing the Commission.
· Reported that Mr. Paul Boyer never spoke with him at the time that he build his two-story
home directly behind his home.
· Stated that his family is uncomfortable with the Boyers' windows overlooking their living
space.
· Asked the Commission to think about approving this request.
Mr. Don Call:
· Said that he feels badly that there is disharmony in this neighborhood.
· Said that he spent lots of money ($700,000) for this property and has the right to develop it.
· Stated that he is willing to work with the neighbors and that he has good relations with his
own neighbors.
· Advised that he is bothered that Mr. Boyer feels he has no responsibility for cramming his
own house on his own lot and never having planting screening trees on his own lot.
· Said he should be able to develop his own property like Mr. Boyer has.
· Reiterated that he is willing to work with the neighbors' requests if they are reasonable.
Commissioner Hernandez restated that Mr. Call is sensitive to these neighbors and is willing to
take reasonable steps to address their concerns.
Mr. Don Call:
· Stated that he likes to be a good neighbor.
· Said that this is a big lot and that he should be able to build on it and not be obtrusive to the
neighbors.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2004
Page 8
· Pointed out that Mr. Boyer refused to shake his hand twice but that he is willing to let Mr.
Boyer meet with his architect to address concerns.
Commissioner Gibbons asked Mr. Don Call if the driveway is planned for the left side of the
property in order to retain the original house.
Mr. Don Call replied yes. His son plans to live in this house and it is easier to cut out the
garage than a portion of the bedroom or living room in the house.
Lorin Thompson, 1015 Hazel Avenue, Campbell:
· Said that he is a resident ofthe area since 1978.
· Stated that appreciates the rural feel of the area and would prefer it to stay rural.
· Pointed out that there have been many developments in the area that are tight and that
several properties on the western portion of Hazel Avenue have become flag lots.
· Said that he would rather this project not be built.
Ms. Judy Noyes:
· Said that there is a flag lot directly across the street from this property.
· Pointed out that Hazel Avenue has grown so busy over the last years.
· Said that her bedroom faces the street.
· Added that the school down the street recently closed so the neighborhood is less likely to
draw families with young children.
Chair Doorley closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No.2.
Commissioner Hernandez asked if it is conditioned that the Site and Architectural Review
Permit for the new home be brought to the Planning Commission for review.
Director Sharon Fierro replied yes, although it is not required by Code.
Senior Planner Geoff1. Bradley pointed out Condition of Approval #5.
Commissioner Hernandez asked if there are provisions for flag lots within the San Tomas Area
Neighborhood Plan.
Senior Planner Geoff Bradley replied that the standards for flag lots are located within the
Subdivision Ordinance. The San Tomas Plan divides the area into R-I-6, 8, 10, 12 and 16 lots.
Normal subdivision requirements apply to the San Tomas Neighborhood. The Subdivision
Ordinance and STANP are separate but work together.
Commissioner Hernandez asked if it had not been reported in the past that only a small
percentage of lots could be split in the San Tomas Neighborhood.
Director Sharon Fierro said that the unique quality of the San Tomas Neighborhood is that
these are larger rural lots, formerly small farmers gardens, with fairly narrow frontage but
deep. The only place where flag lots apply in the City is in the San Tomas Neighborhood. The
flag lot concept results in a better use of land now that fewer people these days are maintaining
Planning Commission Minutes of June 22,2004
Page 9
these farmers gardens. There is nothing in the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan that
prevents flag lots.
Commissioner Gibbons:
. Clarified the process for this project. This evening is in consideration of the Parcel Map
and the Site and Architectural Review Permit would come before the Commission at a later
date. The Site and Architectural Review Permit is coming to the Commission because of
the complexity of this project.
· Added that issues such as fences, windows and trees would be a part of that process.
· Asked if the privacy for the surrounding lots is coming from trees on this parcel of from
trees on their own lots.
Planner Melinda Denis advised that there are significant large trees on this parcel. Trees that
are 12-inches or greater are protected and will be required to be replaced on a one to one ratio.
The applicant will be required to provide a conceptual landscape plan.
Commissioner Roseberry:
· Said that the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan IS intended to set parameters for
development.
· Added that it is important that emotion be kept out.
· Said that project review is not based upon property values and/or the amount paid for a
property.
· Concluded by saying that the question at hand is whether a project is in compliance with
the regulations.
Commissioner Francois:
· Concurred with Mr. Noyes assessment that the existing parcel is a weed patch in terrible
condition.
· Agreed with the comments of Commissioner Roseberry.
· Said that the applicant has the right to develop his property.
· Stated that the proposal meets the standards of the Code and of the San Tomas Area
Neighborhood Plan.
· Said that Mr. Call's willingness to work with Mr. Boyer is admirable at the least.
· Said he would definitely support this request.
Commissioner Rocha:
· Said that the Commission is being asked to serve as referees on things that are not relating
to this application.
· Stated that the Commission is not here to referee personal disputes and asked the neighbors
to be adults and understand the process.
· Said that the Commission has to act based on what's placed before them.
· Advised that he will support this request.
Chair Doorley:
· Said he could not personally make Finding #4 that requires a project to be harmonious to
the existing neighborhood, not just on a neighbor-to-neighbor basis.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2004
Page 10
· Said that a previous lot split issue on Tubby Street drew him to seek appointment to the
Planning Commission.
· Said that he does not think that flag lots are positive developments.
· Said that something will be built here be it one house or two.
· Agreed that the project meets the criteria.
· Reiterated that he cannot make Finding #4 as this project is disharmonious.
· Stated that he is troubled on this issue.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Alderete, seconded by Commissioner
Francois, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3576
approving a Tentative Parcel Map (PLN2004-15) to allow the division of a
parcel into two residential lots on property owned by Mr. Donald Call
located at 1045 Hazel Avenue, and found this project to be Categorically
Exempt under CEQA, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alderete, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Rocha and
Roseberry
NOES: Doorley
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chair Doorley advised that this action is final unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk
within 10 days.
***
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as
presented with the following additions:
· Advised that the next agenda has one item on it. However, as a result of this evening's
SARC meeting, the applicant is being asked to provide revised drawings. Therefore, staff
is recommending the cancellation of the July 13th Planning Commission meeting for which
this was the only item. The next meeting would be on July 2th.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Rocha, seconded by Commissioner
Gibbons, the Planning Commission cancelled its meeting of July 13, 2004,
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Rocha and
Roseberry
None
None
None
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. to the next Regular Planning
Commission Meeting of July 27, 2004.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 22, 2004
Page 11
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
~~
Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary
( ,a~
40n Fierro, Secretary