PC Res 2025-03RESOLUTION NO. 2025-03
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A VARIANCE TO LEGALIZE AN
EXISTING UNPERMITTED 7-FOOT TALL FENCE AND VEHICULAR
GATE WITH A ZERO-FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE STREET SIDE
PROPERTY LINE, WHERE A 3 ½ FOOT TALL FENCE IS
OTHERWISE ALLOWED, ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 N.
MILTON AVENUE. FILE NO.: PLN-2024-75
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File Number PLN-2024-75:
1. The Project Site is a single-family residential property located at the southeast corner of
North Milton Avenue and Hedegard Avenue.
2. The Project Site is designated by the Campbell Zoning Map as R-1-6 (Single-Family
Residential Zoning District) and by the Campbell General Plan Land Use Diagram as
Low Density Residential (Less than 7.5).
3. The property is surrounded by single-family homes on the north, west, and south, and
the Campbell Community Center towards the east.
4. The Project Site currently contains a single-story single-family residence with a detached
accessory dwelling unit and a garage.
5. The property has had existing fences that were built without city permits or approval, as
evidenced in the Google Street view photographs contained in the associated staff
report.
6. The applicant had initially submitted a Fence Exception application to legalize the
existing fence and gate, provided in Section 21.18.060 of the Campbell Municipal Code
(CMC).
7. In March 2022, a building permit for a new detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) with
an attached garage was submitted to the city for review. The permit plans also indicated
demolition of an existing garage and creation of an uncovered parking space within the
new driveway. The permit was issued in September 2022. The issued project plans did
not include fencing in the scope of work or nor referenced a vehicular gate.
8. In March 2024, building inspector conducted a final inspection of the new detached ADU
and a garage and failed the inspection due to discovery that a non-compliant 7-foot fence
and vehicular gate that had been constructed without city approvals or permits.
9. A Fence Exception Permit was submitted in May 2024 without modifications to the fence
design or fence height. Planning staff met with the owner and advised that the Fence
Exception Permit could not be approved as submitted. In June 2024, Planning staff
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-03 Page 2 of 5
110 N Milton Ave ~ Variance (PLN-2024-75)
deemed the application incomplete, requesting a revision to the plans to comply with the
fence regulations in Section 21.18.060.
10. In July 2024, the applicant resubmitted the application and proposed safety mirrors to be
installed in the public right-of-way (park strip). In August 2024, City staff conducted a site
visit and reviewed the safety mirror request. The Public Works Department was not
supportive of the proposed safety mirrors on public property, citing maintenance and
vandalism concerns.
11. Planning staff received five public comments, four of which were supportive of the Fence
Exception Permit and one cited a concern on the opacity of the lattice and expressed a
desire for more transparency. A decision was rendered on the Fence Exception Permit
on August 30, 2024, and the project was denied as the required findings could not be
affirmatively established. The property owner and applicant were informed of the permit
denial.
12. Following denial of the Fence Exception request, the property owner filed an appeal,
challenging the Community Development Director’s denial of the Fence Exception
Permit.
13. In the property owner’s appeal statement, the property owner contended the following
summarized points: 1) The fence pre-existed and should be grandfathered in. The fence
is shown in the development application. A Fence Exception Permit is not required as
the fence is pre-existing; 2) The fence and gate was present in the building permit
drawings and minor maintenance was conducted on a pre-existing fence; 3) The Fence
Exception application was submitted under protest and duress as the city illegally held
up final inspection until the fence issues were resolved. No corrections are needed for
the pre-existing fence. The Fence Exception Permit was made under duress and there
is no admission that the fence is illegal or unpermitted; 4) There is no noncompliance
fence and the pre-existing fence has been grandfathered in; 5) The gate is outside of the
scope of review as Section 21.18.060 does not mention a gate; 6) The Zoning Code
does not mention maintenance on an existing fence and requiring the fence to be in
compliant violates state ADU law; and 7) Section 21.18.060 only applies to fencing not
more than 3.5 feet or not more than 6-feet.
14. At its meeting of November 12, 2024, the Planning Commission indicated it was
supportive of the applicant’s desire to maintain the fence in its current location. However,
staff advised that the "Fence Exception" requirements would require the upper 3 ½ feet
of the fence to 50% open to light and air (i.e., incorporate a lattice or gride design). Staff
further informed the Planning Commission that the appropriate mechanism to legalize
the fence as constructed would be a Variance.
15. Following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted an application for
a Variance and provided the following findings as a basis for the Variance application to
legalize the fence:
16. Pursuant to CMC Section 21.48.030, it is the responsibility of the applicant to establish
evidence in support of the findings required.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-03 Page 3 of 5
110 N Milton Ave ~ Variance (PLN-2024-75)
17. The applicant provided the following findings, which have been considered by the
Planning as sufficient to support approval of a Variance to maintain the fence.
• As the Planning Commission noted in the November 12th, 2024 hearing, lots in the
North Milton Ave neighborhood are narrow, and complying with the setbacks
significantly restricts the usable area of the property. Strict compliance with the five-
foot setback for a taller fence would force the removal of established landscaping,
protected trees, and garden boxes, as well as reduce the already limited outdoor
space on the street side of the lot.
Additionally, the back Community Center entrance is immediately next door. This
creates a heightened need for security as demonstrated by the history of burglaries,
vandalism, dog feces, and dumping at the property. The openness requirements
create a hardship in securing and maintaining the property. Passer’s by frequently
peep into the yard or even come into the property uninvited if the gate is left open.
There are a large number of folks walking dogs to the community center, which will
continuously aggravate our dogs if the visibility requirements are enforced. The
height requirement creates a hardship because our dogs can easily get over a 6
foot fence. Finally, our dogs were infected on two occasions with Giardia spread by
the excessive uncleaned dog feces.
Enforcing the driveway triangle will make it impossible to secure a vehicle behind
the vehicle gate, opening it to further vandalism. The same level of pedestrian and
vehicle safety on Hedegard will be ensured through two other mechanisms (1) The
gate makes noise to notify passers-by when it opens and closes; and (2) safety
mirrors installed on posts inside the gate, and angled to ensure full visibility of the
sidewalk and street when the gate is open.
This variance resolves a conflict in the code where moving the fence and gate to
the setback puts it in the middle of the driveway, which would make it impossible to
park in the driveway. The driveway is city mandated parking .
With these circumstances taken together, the strict application of the code would
result in a significant practical and unnecessary physical hardship not in line with
the Zoning Code’s intent, which seeks to encourage functional, safe, and
harmonious uses of residential properties.
• While the Zoning Code applies uniformly, properties differ in shape and size. For a
narrow and irregularly shaped corner lot in close proximity to the busy Community
Center entrance, enforcing the full five-foot setback and driveway triangle for a taller
fence eliminates valuable yard space, established landscaping and gardening beds,
and privacy that wider or more regularly shaped lots can maintain without issue. In
other words, the shape and configuration of this property mean that the fence
regulations impose a unique penalty not typically encountered on standard or wider
lots. Couple this with the safety issues created by the adjacent Community Center
entrance and this effectively deprives the applicant of the same reasonable
privilege—enjoying privacy, security, and full use of their yard space—that owners
of more regular lots that are not near busy public entrances can achieve.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-03 Page 4 of 5
110 N Milton Ave ~ Variance (PLN-2024-75)
• This lot’s narrow and irregular shape, combined with its corner location near a
heavily trafficked community facility, presents unusual challenges not generally
faced by other properties. Many parcels have more flexibility in layout and can
accommodate code-compliant fencing while maintaining privacy and usable yard
areas. The subject property’s constrained dimensions and corner exposure near
the Community Center constitute exceptional circumstances that warrant relief from
the strict application of the fence regulations.
• Allowing the requested variance recognizes the unique conditions of a narrower,
corner lot by the Community Center back entrance rather than granting an across-
the-board leniency. This is not a special privilege, as it simply provides a
proportional solution to the disproportionate hardships caused by the lot’s
uncommon combination of shape and location. The variance would merely permit
the property owner to enjoy a level of privacy and secure use of their yard consistent
with what is readily attainable on more typical parcels within the same district that
are less narrow or with less community center traffic.
• The fence height and design incorporate design features—such as the gate beeping
and strategic placement of mirrors—to maintain necessary sight lines for
pedestrians, drivers, and cyclists. Ensuring good visibility at the driveway will keep
the public right-of-way safe. Keeping the fence adjacent to the sidewalk preserves
existing well established and attractive landscaping and the use of the space for
garden beds – rather than a dumping ground full of weeds. Additionally, providing
the property owner with the ability to establish effective privacy and security on their
narrower corner lot is consistent with the broader intent of the Zoning Code to
protect neighborhood character without introducing harmful effects on neighboring
properties. The variance is intended to legalize a fence that, in large part, has been
in similar condition for as long as anyone in the neighborhood can remember while
adding safety features out of an abundance of caution.
18. Due to the fence’s placement within the driveway vision sight triangle, and the potential
for a collision with a pedestrian or cyclist by an existing vehicle within the public right-of-
way, it necessary for this approval to require the applicant to execute and record an
indemnification agreement to protect the City from claims resulting from this approval, to
the satisfaction of the City Attorney.
19. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the Conditions
of Approval and the impacts of the project.
20. No substantial evidence has been presented which shows that the Proposed Project, as
currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a
significant adverse impact on the environment.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and
concludes that:
Variance Findings (CMC Sec. 21.48.040.B)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2025-03 Page 5 of 5
110 N Milton Ave ~ Variance (PLN-2024-75)
1. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s) would
result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of the Zoning Code’
2. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s) would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in
the same zoning district;
3. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
subject property (i.e. size, shape, topography) which do not apply generally to other
properties classified in the same zoning district;
4. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district;
5. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare,
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the area; and
Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
6. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303 (New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
which exempts appurtenant structures, such as fences, garages, patios, and swimming
pools from environmental review.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves a Variance to
legalize an existing unpermitted 7-foot tall fence and vehicular gate with a zero-foot setback
along the street side property line, where a 3 ½ foot tall fence is otherwise allowed, on
property located at 110 N. Milton Avenue, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval
(attached Exhibit "A").
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of February, 2025, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: Zisser, Kamkar, Krey, Buchbinder, Ostrowski, Fields
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners: Majewski
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
APPROVED:
Matt Kamkar, Chair
ATTEST:
Rob Eastwood, Secretary
Matt Kamkar (Apr 30, 2025 16:14 PDT)
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Variance (PLN-2025-75)
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. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Variance to legalize an existing unpermitted
7-foot-tall fence and vehicular gate with a zero-foot setback along the street-side property
line, where a 3 ½-foot-tall fence is otherwise allowed, on property located at 110 N.
Milton Avenue. The fencing and gate shall substantially conform to the Project Plans
and proposed safety measures included as Attachments No. B and F, respectively, in
the February 11, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report, except as modified by
conditions of approval contained herein.
2. Permit Expiration: The Variance shall be valid for one (1) year from the effective date of
Planning Commission action. Within this period, a Building Permit for the existing electric
vehicle gate must be issued pursuant to CMC Sec. 21.56.030.B.1. Failure to meet this
deadline or expiration of an issued Building Permit shall render the Variance approval
void, requiring removal of all noncompliant fencing.
3. Building Permit Deadline: The property owner shall submit a Building Permit application
to legalize the existing electric vehicle gate within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective
date of approval.
4. Indemnity Agreement: Within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of approval
or prior to the issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, the property owner
shall enter into an indemnification agreement, to the satisfaction of the City Attorney, to
indemnify and hold harmless the City against any potential liabilities stemming from this
approval.
Reso No 2025-03 - 110 N Milton Ave
Final Audit Report 2025-04-30
Created:2025-04-29
By:Ken Ramirez (kenr@campbellca.gov)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAjGfMLzRD_iBN4QIHraiNQJ5ZT2sgJVTc
"Reso No 2025-03 - 110 N Milton Ave" History
Document created by Ken Ramirez (kenr@campbellca.gov)
2025-04-29 - 11:36:00 PM GMT
Document emailed to Matt Kamkar (mkamkar7@gmail.com) for signature
2025-04-29 - 11:36:04 PM GMT
Document emailed to Rob Eastwood (robe@campbellca.gov) for signature
2025-04-29 - 11:36:04 PM GMT
Email viewed by Rob Eastwood (robe@campbellca.gov)
2025-04-30 - 9:43:31 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Rob Eastwood (robe@campbellca.gov)
Signature Date: 2025-04-30 - 9:43:41 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Email viewed by Matt Kamkar (mkamkar7@gmail.com)
2025-04-30 - 11:13:26 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Matt Kamkar (mkamkar7@gmail.com)
Signature Date: 2025-04-30 - 11:14:29 PM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2025-04-30 - 11:14:29 PM GMT