Variance - 2001June 21, 2001
CITY OF CAMPBELL
City Clerk's Office
Doug and Lorri Watson
1353 Cameo Drive
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Doug and Lorri Watson:
At the regular meeting of June 19, 2001, the City Council held a public hearing to consider
your Appeal of Planning Commission decision denying approval of a Variance (PLN 2001-40)
to allow the construction of a garage addition with a 19 feet 6 inch setback to the public street
right-of-way for property located at 1353 Cameo Drive in a Single-family Residential (R-l)
Zoning District.
After hearing public testimony, and City Council consideration and discussion, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 9885 upholding your Appeal and overturning the Planning
Commission denial of a Variance, subject to the Conditions of Approval for the project. A
certified copy of this Resolution is attached for your records.
Should you have any questions in regard to the City Council's action, please do not hesitate to
contact this office (866-2117) or Darcy Smith, Planner II, Community Development
Department.
Sincerely,
Anne Bybee
City Clerk
EBC.
70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008.1423 · T~L 408.866.2117 - F^x 408.374.6889 · 'rDD 408.866.2790
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Darcy Smith
Planner II, Community Development Dept.
j~~~iemsley
y City Clerk
1, 2001
Subject:
Appeal of Variance - (PLN 2001-40) - 1353 Cameo Drive
After holding a public hearing at the regular meeting of June 19, 2001, the City
Council adopted Resolution 9885 upholding the Appeal, by appellant, Doug and Lorri
Watson, of Planning Commission decision denying approval of a Variance (PLN 2001-
40) to allow the construction of a garage addition with a 19 feet 6 inch setback to the
public street right-of-way at 1353 Cameo Drive in a Single-family Residential (R-l)
Zoning District
A copy of this Resolution is attached for your records, together with a copy of the letter
written to the appellants as part of the City Council follow-up.
RESOLUTION NO. 9885
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CAMPBELL UPHOLDING AN APPEAL AND OVERTURNING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE
(PLN2001-40) TO THE GARAGE SETBACK TO ALLOW A
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1353
CAMEO DRIVE IN AN R-l-6 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT. APPEAL AND APPLICATION OF DOUG
AND LORRI WATSON. FILE NO. PLN2001-40.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the heating was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council does find as follows with
respect to application PLN2001-40:
The proposed project is consistent with the Single-Family Residential and Parking and
Loading Zoning Ordinances, with the approval of a variance to allow a 19-foot, six-inch
setback to the garage.
2. The strict interpretation of the 25-foot setback for a garage creates a hardship for this
particular lot.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan
Designation.
4. Granting of the variance does not create a pedestrian or vehicular safety problem due to the
effective setback of 25 feet from the public street right-of-way.
5. Approval of the variance would not be a granting of a special privilege that is contrary to the
intent or purpose of the zoning regulations or the General Plan.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further finds and concludes that
subject to the Conditions of Approval:
Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the required setback to the garage would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives
of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved which do not apply generally to other single-family residential properties.
Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the garage setback requirement would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other single-family residential
properties.
AND COR[~~CT Cr~'" c-:c I'~'~E CR!GtNAL
ON FILE Hq
ATTES~ ~2 L:, (,,iY CLERK. CITY
City Council Resolution Granting Appeal and Overturning Planning Commission Action
PLN2001-40- 1353 Cameo Drive (Variance for Garage Setback)
Page 2
4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitation on other properties classified in the single-family residential zoning district.
5. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
WHEREFORE, the City Council hereby resolves to uphold the appeal and approve the
applicant's request for a Variance, subject to the following Conditions of Approval.
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is required to meet the
following conditions in accordance with the ordinance of the City of Campbell and the State of
California. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified on each
condition where necessary. 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
Califomia that pertain to this development and are not herein specified:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION:
Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Variance to allow the construction of a 709
square-foot addition to an existing single-family residence at 1353 Cameo Drive. Project
approval shall substantially comply with project plans prepared by Wiley Building Design,
that were received by the Planning Division on May 14, 2001, except as modified by the
Conditions of Approval herein.
Mechanical Equipment: All roof mounted and ground mounted equipment, i.e. air
conditioning units, shall be screened with architecturally compatible materials and located to
minimize any negative visual impact, subject to approval by the Community Development
Director, prior to the issuance of building permits.
Variance Approval Expiration: The Variance approval (PLN2001-40) for this project is valid
for a period of one (1) year from the Planning Commission approval. All conditions of
approval specified herein must be completed within one year from the date of approval, or
the permit shall be void.
4. Parking and Driveways: All parking and driveway areas shall be developed in compliance
with the standards in Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code.
5. Property Maintenance: The property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash,
debris and weeds at all times.
City Council Resolution Gr,_.dng Appeal and Overturning Planning ~ommission Action
PLN2001-40 - 1353 Cameo Drive (Variance for Garage Setback)
Page 3
6. Storage of Boat in Garage: The boat shall be stored in the garage at all times, except for short
periods (not to exceed 24 hours) to allow for washing or trip preparation.
BUILDING DIVISION:
Permits Required: A building permit application shall be required for the proposed structure.
The building permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when such work is
part of the permit. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and
receive from, the Building Division, all applicable construction permits.
8. Construction Plans: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet of
construction plans submitted for building permit.
9. Size of Plans: The maximum size of construction plans submitted for building permits shall
be 24 inches by 36 inches.
10. Site Plan: Application for building permit shall include an accurate site plan that identifies
property lines and proposed structures with dimensions and elevations as appropriate. The
site plan shall also include site drainage details.
11. Title 24 Energy compliance: California Title 24 Energy Standards Compliance forms CF-1R
and MF-1R shall be blue-lined on the construction plans. 8.5 by 11 calculations shall be
submitted as well.
12. Special Inspections: When a special inspection is required by U.B.C. Section 1701, the
architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to
the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permits, in accordance
with U.B.C Section 106.3.5. Please obtain City of Campbell, Special Inspection forms from
the Building Inspection Division Counter.
13. Non-Point Source Pollution Control: The City of Campbell, standard Santa Clara Valley
Non-point Source Pollution Control Program specification sheet shall be part of plan
submittal. The specification sheet (size 24" by 36") is available at the Building Division
service counter.
14. Approvals Required: The project requires the following agency clearances prior to issuance
of the building permit:
a. West Valley Sanitation District (378-2407)
b. Santa Clara County Fire Department (378-4010)
c. School Districts:
i) Campbell Union School District (378-3405)
ii) Campbell Union High School District (371-0960)
iii) Moreland School District (379-1370)
iv) Cambrian School District (377-2103)
City Council Resolution Granting Appeal and Overturning Planning Commission Action
PLN2001-40 - 1353 Cameo Drive (Variance for Garage Setback)
Page 4
Note: To Determine your district, contact the offices identified above. Obtain the School
District payment form from the City Building Division, at~er the Division has approved
the building permit application.
PUBL~_C wo_nK$ DP.P~,RTMENT
15. l ltilitie~. All new on-site Utilities shall be installed underground per Section 20.36.150 of
the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions. Applicant
shall comply with all plan submittals, permitting, and fee requirements of the serving utility
companies.
16..qmrm Drain Area Fee, Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for the site,
the applicant shall pay the required Storm Drain Area fee, which is $405.00.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this a m-h day .~,no ,2001, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Furtado,
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Kennedy, Burr, Watson, Dean
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Anne Bybee, City Clerk
AYES: Councilmembers: Furtado, Kennedy, Burr, Watson, Deah
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ORAL REQUESTS
a. John A. Civelli, 2283 Lemoyne Way, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and
spoke regarding the restriction of left turns from the business located on the corner of
Campbell Avenue and Union Avenue.
Mayor Dean referred this matter to staff.
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
13. Appeal of Planning Commission decision Denying Variance (PLN2001-40) to the
garage setback to allow a residential addition on property located at 1353 Cameo
Drive in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District (Resolution/Roll Call
Vote)
This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Commission decision denying Variance (PLN2001-40) to the garage setback to allow a
residential additi°n on property located at 1353 Cameo Drive in an R-l-6 (Single
Family Residential) Zoning District.
Community Development Director Fierro - Staff Report dated June 19, 2001.
Mayor Dean declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience
wished to be heard.
Doug Watson, 1353 Cameo Drive, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and
spoke in support of the Appeal.
Dori Singewald, 1360 Cameo Drive, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and
spoke in support of the Appeal.
Darryl Shelton, 1325 Cameo Drive, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and
spoke in support of the Appeal.
Dan Peake, 1396 Cameo Drive, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke
in support of the Appeal.
Sharon Wittrock, 1367 Cameo Drive, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and
spoke in support of the Appeal.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Dean closed the public hearing.
Minutes of 6/19/2001 City Council Meeting 4
Following City Council discussion, M/S: Burr/Kennedy - that the City Council
adopt Resolution 9885 upholding the Appeal and overturning the Planning
Commission denial of a Variance (PLN2001-40) to the garage setback to allow a
residential addition on property located at 1353 Cameo Drive in an R-l-6 (Single
Family Residential) Zoning District, subject to Conditions of Approval. Motion
adopted by the following roll emil vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Furtado, Kennedy, Burr, Watson, Dean
NOES: Councilmembers: None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There were no agendized items.
NEW BUSINESS
There were no agendized items.
COI.~'CIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
13.
City Councilmemb'er Reports
--Councilmember Furtado reported on the County Library JPA.
--Councilmember Kennedy distributed summary notes from the June 7 VTA Board and
reported on a joint meeting of the VTA Board and County Supervisors regarding
funding of the Hamilton light rail station.
--Vice Mayor Watson announced that the Board of Supervisors approved a $200,000
contribution to the Theater project.
--Mayor Dean reported on an upcoming Solid Waste JPA Meeting.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
There were no agendized items.
ADJOURN'
Mayor Dean adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
Minutes of 6/19/2001 City Council Meeting
Council
Report
ITEM NO:
CATEGORY:
MEETING DATE:
13.
Public Hearing
June 19, 2001
TITLE
Appeal of the Planning Commission decision denying approval of a Variance (PLN 2001-40) to
allow the construction of a garage addition with a 19 feet, 6 inch setback to the public street
right-of-way at 1353 Cameo Drive in a Single-family Residential (R-l) Zoning District.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
The City Council may take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission denial of a Variance (PLN 2001-40)
and denying the appeal; or
2. Adopt a Resolution overturning the Planning Commission denial of a Variance (PLN 2001-
40) and upholding the appeal and adopting Conditions of Approval for the project.
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Meeting: On May 22, 2001, the Planning Commission, by a 5-2 vote,
adopted Resolution No. 3348 denying an application for a Variance (PLN 2000-40) to allow the
construction of a garage addition with a 19 feet, 6 inch setback to the public street right-of-way at
1353 Cameo Drive on property located at 1353 Cameo Drive.
Appeal:
On June 1, 2001, the City received a letter from the applicants, Doug and Lord Watson,
appealing the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested Variance. A copy of the
appeal letter is included as Attachment No. 3.
The applicants' state in their appeal letter that the garage addition meets the intent of the Zoning
Code and that the wording of Section 21.50.030 Off-street Parking Design Standards of the
Parking and Loading Ordinance is inconsistent with the stated purpose and intent of the Parking
and Loading Ordinance, which is to assure that adequate off-street parking and loading spaces are
provided for each particular type of land use and are laid out in a manner which will ensure their
usefulness, protect the public safety, and where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from
their impact.
Proposed Project: The applicant is proposing a 115 square-foot addition to an existing garage that
would increase the depth of the garage to 24 feet, 9 inches to accommodate the applicant's boat.
The garage entrance, which is currently oriented towards the eastern side property line, would be
re-orientated to face the street in order to accommodate a 594 square-foot addition consisting of a
new entryway and living room offthe front of the house.
Variance Request: The applicant is requesting a variance on the grounds that an "effective" 25-
foot setback is provided since Cameo Drive is a 60-foot right-of-way and measures 49 feet from
the backs of the sidewalks on each side. Therefore, 5 feet, 6 inches of the public street right-of-
way' is located between 'the back of the sidewalk and the front property line of the applicant's
property. Although the proposed garage addition would be located 19 feet, 6 inches from the
City Council Report - June 19, 2001
Appeal of PLN 2001- 40 - 1353 Cameo Drive
Paj~e 2
front property line, it would be located 25 feet from the back of the sidewalk. The site plan below
illustrates these setbacks.
I, L
Proposed
Garage
L
Proposed
Family
Room
k'~ ~I;~,LJNE ~ C.,~'~IEO DI:PJVE
SITE PLAN
City Council Report- June 19, 2001
Appeal of PLN 2001- 40 - 1353 Cameo Drive
Paise 3
Findings for Approval:
The Planning Commission denied the requested variance since they were unable to make the
findings required by the Municipal Code, Section 21.70: Variances. Campbell's variance
requirements derive from State Law, Government Code Section 65906.
Section 21.70 of the Campbell Zoning Code, based on the provisions of State Law and court
cases, sets forth the following findings that must be met to grant a variance:
1. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with
the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. An average sized garage (22 feet, 4
inches by 19feet, 7 inches) can be provided on site without the granting of the
variance. The Parking and Loading Ordinance requires one covered parking
space that measures 10 feet wide and 20feet deep.
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply
generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district. There is
nothing unique about the subject property that would justify a variance. The
parcel measures 70.56feet wide and 124.98feet deep, which is similar to the
other eight parcels on the block and exceeds the minimum width requirement of
60 feet and the depth requirement of l OO feet for the single-family residential
zoning district.
3. Strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
classified in the same zoning district. There is no privilege denied in that a
standard sized garage can be incorporated on the site.
4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
zoning district. Staff finds the granting of the variance would constitute a
special privilege.
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 vicinity.
Staff finds that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative actions are listed under "City Council Actions" above.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None
City Council Report - June 19, 2001
Appeal of PLN 2001- 40 - 1353 Cameo Drive
Pal~e 4
Attachments:
1. Draft City Council Resolution upholding the Planning Commission denial of a Variance and
denying the appeal of PLN 2001-40.
2. Draft City Council Resolution overturning the Planning Commission denial of a Variance
and upholding the appeal of PLN 2001-40.
3. Letter of Appeal submitted by Doug and Lorri Watson.
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3348
5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 22, 2001
6. Staff Report for Planning Commission Meeting May 22, 2001
7. Location Map
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
- Darcy~mith, Planner II
Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director
Approved by:
Manager
June 14, 2001
Doug and Lorri Watson
1353 Cameo Drive '?lty CL£F;" .....
Campbell, CA 95008
To the Campbell City Council:
We appeal to the Campbell Ciw Council to reconsider the decision of the Pla~ing
Commission which demed a variance (PLN 2001-40) to the ~ont street setback to a
garage addition at 1353 Cameo Drive.
Our proposed garage addition meets the purpose of the Off-Street Parking Design
Standards by providing a 25 foot setback from the sidewalk to allow for parking.
The wording of the Off-street design standard 21.50.030.D is inconsistent with its
stated purpose and intent 21.50.010 when the public right of way is wider than the
sidewalks. On May 8, 2001, the Site and Architectural Review Committee agreed
and directed the planning staff to investigate alternatives to measuring setbacks
between the garage and street right of way and amend the zoning code.
Our current garage door faces sideways to the street, and the current curved driveway
prevents us from using our land for the most logical and effective addition to our
home's living space.
While we have the right to add a 2nd story tO Our home, this would be inconsistent
with all of the other homes on Cameo Drive.
If we re-orient our garage door to face the street without our proposed garage
addition, the garage depth would be less than the minimum depth of 20 feet specified
in the Off-street parking design standard 21.50.030.A. Also, the garage would be too
short to allow parking our standard-sized ski boat inside. While we have the right to
park our boat permanently on the driveway, we, as well as our neighbors, would
prefer it parked in the garage to preserve the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
We believe the variance should be granted on the following grounds:
1)
Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result
in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance.
a) As written, the code requires us to have a 30~6'' driveway.
b) We believe the intent of the code is to have a 25' driveway for off-street parking.
c) Literal interpretation of the setback from right-or-way rather than sidewalk is
inconsistent with and more restrictive than the stated purpose (21.50.010) "to
assure adequate off-street parking and loading spaces."
d) ltardship: Literal interpretation of the zoning code means we cannot re-orient our
garage entrance and maintain the required 20' parking depth inside (21.50.030.A).
e) ltardship: The current curved driveway prevents us from using a large portion of
our land for the most logical and effective addition to our home's living space.
Hardship: Alternative options are less practical, more difficult, and restrictive:
i) Add 2nd story: Much more expensive
Inconsistent with neighborhood
ii) Add to rear: Destroys established landscaping and patio
Not effective usage of existing floor plan
Reduces size of backyard
2) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply generally
to the other properties classified in the same zoning district.
a) in general, the right-of-way is sized to accommodate the street, curb, planting
strip, and sidewalk so that the sidewalk edge is the right-of-way boundary.
b) On Cameo, the sidewalk is adjacent to curb, so the right-of-way is 5'6" into our
yard.
3)
Strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
classified in the same zoning district.
a) We are required to have a 30'6" driveway, when generally a 25' driveway is
acceptable.
b) Many homes in our neighborhood have garage entrance setbacks less than 30'6".
c) Many homes in our neighborhood have driveways even less than 25'.
4)
The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning
district.
a) We are asking for the same 25' driveway length that is generally acceptable for
other properties classified in the same zoning district.
b) Many homes in our neighborhood have garage entrance setbacks less than 30'6".
c) Many homes in our neighborhood have driveways even less than 25'.
d) A variance was granted to homeowners at 1251 Fewtrell Drive for a 16'9"
driveway ( 11' 3" setback)
e) Last year, homeowners at i324 Bent Drive did exactly what we want to do.
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 vicinity.
The Planning Staff finds that 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 vicinity.
May 31,2001
Doug and Lorri Watson
1353 Cameo Drive
Campbell, CA 95008
RECEIVED
J U iq :~, I 2001
CITY. CLERK'S. OF_FICE
~: ~_
To the Campbell City Council:
We hereby appeal to the Campbell City Council to reconsider the decision of the
Planning Commission which denied a variance (PLN 2001-40) to the front street setback
to a garage addition at 1353 Cameo Drive.
We believe the variance should be granted on the following grounds:
1. Our proposed garage addition meets the intent of the Off-Street Parking Design
Standards by providing a 25 foot setback from the sidewalk to allow for parking.
2. The wording of the Off-street design standard 21.50.030.D is inconsistent with its
stated purpose and intent 21.50.010 when the public right of way is wider than the
sidewalks. On May 8, 2001, the Site and Architectural Review Committee agreed
and directed the planning staff to investigate alternatives to measuring setbacks
between the garage and street right of way and amend the zoning code.
3. Our current garage door faces sideways to the street, and the current curved driveway
prevents us from using our land for the most logical and effective addition to our
home's living space.
4. While we have the right to add a 2nd story to our home, this would be inconsistent
with all of the other homes on Cameo Drive.
5. If we re-orient our garage door to face the street without our proposed garage
addition, the garage depth would be less than the minimum depth of 20 feet specified
in the Off-street parking design standard 21.50.030.A. Also, the garage would be too
short to allow parking our standard-sized ski boat inside. While we have the right to
park our boat permanently on the driveway, we, as well as our neighbors, would
prefer it parked in the garage to preserve the aesthetics of the neighborhood.
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department - Current Planning
May24,2001
Doug & Lord Watson
1353 Cameo Drive
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: PLN2001-40- 1353 Cameo Drive - Variance to Garage Setback Requirement
Dear Applicant:
Please be advised that at its meeting of May 22, 2001, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 3348 denying a Variance (PLN2001-40) to the garage setback
requirement to allow a residential addition on the above-referenced property.
This action is effective in ten days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk.
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) 866-2193.
Sincerely,
Darcy Smith
Planner II
CCi
Frank Mills, Building
Harold Housley, Public Works
Chris Veargason, Fire
70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008-1436 - TEL 408.866.2140 · F^X 408.866.838 I · TDD 408.866.2790
RESOLUTION NO. 3348
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF cAMpBELL DENYING A VARIANCE (PLN2001-
40) TO THE GARAGE SETBACK TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL
ADDITION ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1353 CAMEO DRIVE
IN AN R-l-6 (SINGLE FAMILY RESDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT. APPLICATION OF DOUG AND LORRI WATSON.
FILE NO. PLN2001-40.
After due consideration 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 PLN2001-40:
The proposed project is not consistent with the Single-Family Residential and Parking and
Loading Ordinances.
The proposed project is consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan
Designation.
The proposed 19 foot six (6) inch front yard setback to the garage does not suffice as a
minimum front yard setback requirement.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes
that:
Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the required setback to the garage would
not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. An average sized garage (22feet 4 inches by 19feet 7
inches) can be provided on site without the granting of the variance. The Parking and
Loading Ordinance requires one covered parking space that measures ten (10)feet wide
and 20feet deep.
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved which do not apply generally to other single-family residential
properties. There is nothing unique about the subject property that would justify a variance.
The parcel measures 70.56feet wide and 124.98feet deep, which is similar to the other
eight parcels on the block and exceeds the minimum width requirement of 6O feet and the
depth requirement of 100feetfor the single-family residential zoning district.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3348
PLN2001-40- 1353 Cameo Drive (Denial of Variance for Garage Setback)
Page 2
o
Strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the garage setback requirement would
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other single-family
residential properties. There is no privilege denied in that a standard sized garage can be
incorporated on the site.
The granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district. Stafffinds the
granting of the.variance would constitute a special privilege.
The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Stafffinds
that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22~a day May, 2001, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Doorley, Gibbons, Hernandez, Lindstrom and Lowe
Francois and Jones
None
None
APPROVED:
Mel Lindstrom, Chair
ATTEST:
Sharon Fierro, Secretary
Planning Commission Min,..,:s of May 22, 2001 Page 4
2. PLN2001-40
Watson, D & L
Public Hearing to consider the application of Doug & Lorri
Watson for approval of a Variance (PLN2001-40) to the garage
setback to allow a residential addition on property located at 1353
Cameo Drive in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning
District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning
Commission final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to the
City Clerk.
Ms. Darcy Smith, Planner II, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that the applicant is seeking a Variance to allow the construction of a garage
addition with a 19-foot, 6-inch setback to the public right-of-way when 25 feet is required.
· The project site is in the east Campbell neighborhood, on the north side of Cameo Drive.
The single-family residence and an attached garage was constructed in 1956.
· The applicants are proposing a five-foot, two-inch addition to the garage for a total garage
depth of 24 feet, 9 inches to accommodate the applicant's boat. This garage will be re-
oriented to face the street. The proposal also includes the addition of a new entryway and
living room off the front of the house, which meets the required setbacks.
· Advised that the Zoning for this property is R-l-6 (Single Family Residential).
· With the exception of this one setback Variance request, all other development standards
are met with this project.
· Explained that the proposed garage is actually 25 feet fi.om the sidewalk but that the
property line is actually on the residence side of the sidewalk on this particular street.
· Informed that there are five required findings in order to be able to approve a Variance.
These required findings are included on page three of the staff report. Staff finds that only
one of the five findings can be supported while the other four cannot. There is nothing
unique in this case, no privilege is being denied and approving this Variance would be in
itself a special privilege.
· Advised that SARC reviewed this proposal on May 8th and was supportive.
· Staff is recommending denial and advised that revised findings for denial have been
distributed as a table item this evening.
Commissioner Hemandez asked for clarification on how the setbacks are being calculated.
Ms. Darcy Smith replied fi.om the edge of the fi.ont property line, or five feet, six inches away
from the back of the sidewalk.
Commissioner Lowe pointed out Attachment No. 5 fi.om the staff report identifies other
variances.
Ms. Darcy Smith replied that one received a Variance on Fewtrell in 1994 for a 16-foot, nine-
inch setback. The other variances are legal non-conforming properties with no building or
planning approvals on file. These properties were under County jurisdiction at the time they
were constructed, where there were different setback regulations. Added that the intent for the
25-foot setback requirement is to allow off-street parking with out having vehicles projecting
into the sidewalk. Demonstrated this by showing a photo of the aforementioned Fewtrell
property on which a large vehicle (SUV) is projected halfway across the sidewalk.
Planning Commission Mint, Les of May 22, 2001 Page 5
Commissioner Gibbons asked what the basis was for the Variance approved on Fewtrell.
Ms. Darcy Smith replied that the finding was made that there is significant open space in the
rear yard of this property, which would have been adversely impacted, as well as trees
requiring removal, should the Variance not be granted.
Commissioner Hernandez asked whether there are any other alternatives or flexibility for the
calculations of setbacks.
City Attorney William Seligmann advised that it is very clear that setbacks are measured from
the property line.
Commissioner Doorley asked whether Council could approve such a Variance.
City Attorney William Seligmann replied that Council would not be able to do so without
amending the Zoning Code or on appeal of a Planning Commission decision. Council could
issue a Variance on appeal.
Commissioner Doorley said that Council has given the Planning Commission the authority to
decide upon Variances based upon specific criteria.
Commissioner Gibbons asked if this criterion is also based on State law.
City Attorney William Seligmann replied that State law has the same criteria.
Commissioner Hemandez suggested that Council be asked to consider an amendment to the
Ordinance.
City Attorney William Seligmann advised that this project couldn't go forward without a
Variance approval.
Commissioner Hemandez asked if there is a fast track way to amend the Code.
City Attorney William Seligmann replied no.
Commissioner Jones asked whether there are sidewalks on this street.
Ms. Darcy replied yes. However, there is no planting strip.
Commissioner Jones asked if the City has any plan to install a planting strip.
Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director advised that this public right-of-way is
not just for sidewalks. The fight-of-way varies from five to seven, even 10, feet throughout the
City. It is used for placement of utilities.
Planning Commission Minu~,~s of May 22, 2001 Page 6
Commissioner Jones asked if this is fairly typical.
Ms. Sharon Fierro replied yes.
Commissioner Jones questioned whether Planned Developments are held to the same
standards, as it doesn't appear to be the case.
Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that development standards for a PD Zone are different and can vary
fi.om the Zoning Code. In single-family zoning districts, the 25-foot setback is required.
Reiterated that a lot of equipment and utilities are located in that public right-of-way area.
Commissioner Francois presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as
follows:
· Advised that SARC reviewed this proposal on May 8, 2001, and asked staff to investigate
alternatives to measuring the setback on this property.
· Said that a comprehensive amendment to the Zoning Code will occur next year.
· SARC was supportive of this request as presented.
Chair Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Mr. Doug Watson, Applicant, 1353 Cameo Drive, Campbell:
· Said that he understands that the intent of the Ordinance is to provide 25-foot driveway to
park vehicles off street. Despite the actual property line, his proposed driveway would be
25 feet long.
Explained that he wants to construct this larger garage to house his boat.
· Expressed that his neighbors would appreciate the boat not being parked in the driveway.
· Added that he has the option to build a second story onto his home but prefers not to as
there are currently no two-story homes on his street.
· Advised that none of his neighbors object to his proposal.
· Reminded that the driveway approved (by Variance) on Fewtrell is only 16-feet, nine-
inches while his would be 25 feet.
Commissioner Jones asked staff if the surrounding neighbors were notified of this proposal.
Ms. Darcy Smith replied that proper noticing was done and no neighbors have called with
concerns and/or questions.
Mr. Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner, added that staff made a site visit and spoke with the
immediate neighbor, who expressed no concern with this proposal.
Mr. Oscar Wittrock, 1367 Cameo Drive, Campbell:
· Said that he lives next door and has no problem with this application.
Commissioner Doorley stated that it appears the City is putting the cart before the horse. Said
that he was supportive of Mr. Watson's intent but is not able to make the necessary findings.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page 7
Said that the Commission has to be able to state that the five necessary findings of fact are tree.
Added that it seems clear that these findings are not tree.
Commissioner Lowe said that this request is logical and the applicant has made sufficient
justification for the need for this Variance.
Commissioner Gibbons said that it appears that granting this Variance would actual provide a
special privilege to this property. That is a significant finding. Added her personal experience
with a neighbor who has a garage large enough to hold a boat who does not use the garage to
do so.
Commissioner Hemandez suggested that a Condition of Approval was included added
requiring this owner to park the boat in this garage. Said that it appears that there is an
inconsistency between the purpose of the Ordinance and the method of calculating the setback.
City Attorney William Seligmann said that if the Commission can make the five necessary
findings of fact, it could approve this Variance. Staff has made every effort to find a way to
make this application work.
Mr. Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner, added that staff was able to make one finding, that this
Variance would not negatively impact the area, but could not make the other four required
findings.
Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director:
· Reminded that the Zoning Ordinance sets the standards for throughout the City. It is law.
Abuses occurred in the past. To deviate fi.om the law, a City must have compelling reasons
such as a unique characteristic of the property. This could perhaps be a heritage tree or a
stream that runs through a property that restricts the options for that property. These are
things beyond anyone's control and without a variance; owners have no ability to meet
requirements.
· Said that staff is sympathetic to the applicant's desire to construct this garage but is bound
to enforce the Zoning laws.
· Added that every effort was made to make the necessary findings but it was impossible.
Additionally, the City Attorney was consulted. He too was unable to make these findings.
Commissioner Francois:
· Stated his sympathies for the applicant's situation.
· Said that there is a letter and spirit of law.
· Added that he is saddened that the Commission cannot help. Said that the Zoning will need
to be changed.
Commissioner Jones:
· Agreed that there is a letter and spirit of law.
· Expressed his problem with following laws just for the sake of following laws. There are
cases where such rules need to be overridden. It is a disservice to the community to
enforce this rule, as it does not make sense.
Planning Commission Minutes of May 22, 2001 Page
· Said that this applicant is well within the spirit of the law and is actually providing a 25-
foot driveway.
Commissioner Doorley said that it is clear everyone agrees that they would like to support
this request. Asked how any Commissioner proposes to do this, as the Commission would
have to be untruthful to make the necessary findings of fact.
Chair Lindstrom asked if the applicant was made aware of the stringent finding requirements
when he applied for this Variance.
Ms. Darcy Smith said yes. Added that Mr. Watson was provided with a copy of the Variance
Ordinance. Additionally, he spoke with several staff planners in his search for information.
Said that in the future, staff will ask Variance applicants to write how their particular
request/situation meets the required findings for a Variance.
Mr. Geoff Bradley, Senior Planner, added that staff discourages Variance applications but if an
applicant is insistent, staff proceeds with the application process.
Commissioner Gibbons said that it appears the applicant can reorient his garage and still go
forward with his home expansion.
Ms. Darcy Smith, Planner II, clarified that the garage would only be 19 feet, 6 inches deep
when the minimum standard is 20 feet.
Commissioner Gibbons suggested a Variance for that negligible six inches.
Chair Lindstrom asked Mr. Watson if staff explained the difficulties of achieving a Variance
when he applied for his.
Mr. Doug Watson replied that the actual five required findings were new to him when he
attended SARC. While he realized his was a Variance request, he thought it was a reasonable
one. Asked if garage depth is determined internally or externally.
Commissioner Gibbons said that the City Code requires garages have a 20-foot depth.
Mr. Geoff Bradley added that the size of a garage must be at least 20 feet by 20 feet according
to the Zoning Code.
Commissioner Gibbons said that it would take a Variance too in order to deviate in the garage
depth.
Chair Lindstrom closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Doorley,
the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3348 denying a Variance
(PLN2001-40) to the garage setback to allow a residential addition on
Planning Commission Min~.~es of May 22, 2001 Page 9
property located at 1353 Cameo Drive, with the latest amended findings, by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Doorley, Gibbons, Hernandez, Lindstrom and Lowe
NOES: Francois and Jones
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Lindstrom advised that this action is final in 10 days, unless appealed in writing to
the City Clerk.
Chairperson Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record.
3. LN2001-41
Public Hearing to consider Appeals of an Administrative Tree
Removal Permit (PLN2001-41) to allow the removal of an oak
tree on property located at 1312 Ridgeley Drive in an R-l-6
(Single Family Residential) Zoning District. This project is
Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in
10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk.
Ms. Kristi Bascom, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows:
Advised that the applicant is seeking a Tree Removal Permit to remove one oak tree on
property located at 1312 Ridgeley Drive.
· This matter was brought before the attention of the Planning Department as a result of a
citizen complaint following recent drastic trimming occurred. In response, a Code
Enforcement letter was sent.
Said that the owner responded to the complaint letter and explained that the trimming was
required by PG&E due to the proximity to the overhead power lines. As a result, this
owner applied for the Tree Removal Permit.
· Advised that the Community Development Director approved the Tree Removal Permit
based upon the potential for inference with the nearby power lines.
· Informed that two nearby households appealed this approval.
· Said that the applicant's arborist has reported that the tree is not in a good location for its
size. This arborist recommended the tree's removal and replacement with a more
appropriate tree.
· Explained that the Commission has several options this evening. It can deny the appeal
and thereby uphold the decision of the Community Development Director. It can uphold
the appeal and overturn the decision of the Community Development Director. Lastly, it
can continue this matter to a future meeting.
Commissioner Gibbons asked whether PG&E has to comply with the City's Tree Ordinance.
Ms. Kfisti Bascom replied that PG&E has the right to trim as necessary to maintain power
lines.
0 0
PLN2001-40
Watson, D.
ITEM NO. 2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
MAY 22, 2001
Public Heating to consider the application of Doug Watson for approval of a
Variance (PLN2001-40) to allow the construction of a garage addition with
a 19 foot six (6) inch setback to the public street right-of-way on property
located at 1353 Cameo Drive in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning
District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, denying a Variance (PLN2001-40) to
allow the construction of a garage addition with a 19 foot six (6) inch setback to the public street
right-of-way, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project is categorically exempt under Section 15301, Class 1 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Class 1 consists of minor additions to existing structures
where the addition does not result in an increase of more than fifty percent of the existing
building floor area or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less.
PROJECT DATA
Cateeorv
Gross Lot Area:
Net Lot Area:
Proposed Project
0.25 acres (10,935 sq. ft.)
0.20 acres (8,818 sq. ft.)
Required/Allowed
7,260 sq. ft. min.
6,000 sq. ft. min.
Existing Living Area:
Existing Garage:
Total Existing Building Area:
1,698 sq. ft.
437 sq. ft.
2,135 sq. ft.
3,327 sq. ft. max.
200 sq. ft. min.
3,527 sq. ft. max.
Proposed Living Area Addition:
Proposed Garage Addition:
Total Proposed Area:
594 sq. fl.
115 sq. ft.
709 sq. ft.
Total Existing and Proposed Bldg Area: 2,844 sq. ft.
3,527 sq. ft. max.
Total Building Coverage:
Lot Coverage:
2,844 sq. ft.
32.2 %
3,527 sq. ft. max.
40 %
Parking Provided:
2 covered, 2 uncovered
2 spaces (minimum
1 covered)
Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 2001
PLN2001-40- 1353 Cameo Drive
Page 2 of 4
Setbacks
Front Yard (Garage): 19 ft. 6 in. 25 ft.
Front Yard (Living Space): 30 ft. 2 in. 15 ft.
Rear Yard: 40 ft. 3 in. 5 ft.
Side Yard (east): 6 fi. 6 in. 5 ft.
Side Yard (west): 5 fi. 9 in. 5 ft.
Height 16 fi. 9 in. 35 fi.
DISCUSSION
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to the required front
yard setback requirement of 25 feet from the public street right-of-way to the entrance of the
garage. Approval of the variance would allow a 19 foot six (6) inch setback in conjunction with
an addition to the garage that would increase the depth of the garage to 24 feet nine (9) inches to
accommodate the applicant's boat and to re-orient the entrance to the garage to accommodate the
addition of an entry way and living room off the front of the house.
The project site is on the north side of Cameo Drive, east of Midway Street. The project site is
surrounded by single family residences to the north, south, east and west.
Background: The site is currently developed with a 1,698 square foot residence and a 437 square
foot attached garage that was built in 1956.
ANALYSIS
General Plan Designation: The General Plan designation is Low Density Residential (less than
six units per gross acre). The proposed project has a density of four units per gross acre, which is
consistent with the General Plan.
Zoning Designation: The zoning designation for the project site is R-1 (Single Family
Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size). The proposed addition to the single family
residence is consistent with the development standards for the R-1 zoning district, except for the
requirement for the front yard setback to the garage.
Proposed Project: The applicant is proposing an addition to an existing single-story residence
consisting of a five (5) foot two (2) inch addition to an existing garage that would increase the
depth of the garage to 24 feet nine (9) inches to accommodate the applicant's boat. The garage
entrance, which is currently oriented towards the eastern side property line, would be re-
orientated to face the street. The proposal also includes the addition of a new entryway and living
room off the front of the house, which meets the required setbacks. The proposed living room
will extend into the current driveway and require the relocation of the existing garage door and
driveway.
Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 2001
PLN2001-40- 1353 Cameo Drive
Page 3 of 4
Variance Request: The applicant is requesting a variance on the grounds that an "effective" 25
foot setback is provided since Cameo Drive is a 60-foot right-of-way and measures 49 feet from
the backs of the sidewalks on each side. Therefore, five (5) feet six (6) inches of the public street
right-of-way is located between the back of the sidewalk and the front property line of the
applicant's property. Although the proposed garage addition would be located 19 feet six (6)
inches from the front property line, it would be located 25 feet from the back of the sidewalk.
Planning Commission Authority: Section 21.70 of the Campbell Zoning Code empowers the
Planning Commission to grant a variance only after finding that:
1. Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with
the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. An average sized garage (22 feet 4
inches by 19feet 7 inches) can be provided on site without the granting of the
variance. The Parking and Loading Ordinance requires one covered parking
space that measures ten (lO)feet wide and 20feet deep.
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved or to the intended use of the property which do not apply
generally to other properties classified in the same zoning district. There is
nothing unique about the subject property that would justify a variance. The
parcel measures 78.56feet wide and 124.98feet deep, which is similar to the
other eight parcels on the block and exceeds the minimum width requirement of
60 feet and the depth requirement of lOO feet for the single-family residential
zoning district.
3. Strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
classified in the same zoning district. There is no privilege denied in that a
standard sized garage can be incorporated on the site.
4. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
zoning district. Staff finds the granting of the variance would constitute a
special privilege.
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 vicinity.
Staff finds that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
Staff has determined that only one of the required five findings above can be met in this case,
which is not adequate for the granting of the variance since all of the findings must be met in
order for the Planning Commission to approve the variance.
Staff Report - Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 2001
PLN2001-40- 1353 Cameo Drive
Page 4 of 4
Site and Architectural Review Committee: The Site and Architectural Review Committee
reviewed this application at its meeting of May 8, 2001, and directed planning staff to investigate
alternatives to measuring setbacks between the garage and street right-of-way and amending the
Zoning Code. Staff will be considering this issue as a part of the comprehensive update of the
Zoning Code next year.
The Committee was supportive of the proposed project as presented.
Attachments:
1. Findings for Denial of File No. PLN2001-40
2. Findings for Approval of File No. PLN2001-40
3. Conditions of Approval for File No. PLN2001-40
4. Exhibits
5. Variance Request Letter from Applicant
6. Location Map
Prepared by:
Darcy Smith, Planner II
Approved by:
~eotff I. ~r'adley, Senior Planner
Attachment #1
REVISED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF FILE NO. PLN2001-40
SITE ADDRESS: 1353 Cameo Drive
APPLICANT: Doug Watson
DATE: May 22, 2001
Findings for Denial of a Variance (PLN2001-40) to the Front Yard Setback to a Garage Addition.
The planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2001-40:
1. The proposed project is not consistent with the Single-Family Residential and Parking and
Loading Ordinances.
2. The proposed project is consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan
Designation.
3. The proposed 19 foot six (6) inch front yard setback to the garage does not suffice as a
minimum front yard setback requirement.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes
that:
o
Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the required setback to the garage would
not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. An average sized garage (22feet 4 inches by 19feet
7 inches) can be provided on site without the granting of the Variance. The Parla'ng and
Loading Ordinance requires one covered parking space that measures ten (lO)feet wide
and 20feet deep.
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved which do not apply generally to other single-family residential
properties. There is nothing unique about the subject property that would justify a
variance. The parcel measures 70.56feet wide and 124.98feet deep, which is similar to
the other eight parcels on the block and exceeds the minimum width requirement of 60
feet and the depth requirement of 100feetfor the single-family residential zoning district.
Strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the garage setback requirement would
not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other single-family
residential properties. There is no privilege denied in that a standard sized garage can be
incorporated on the site.
The granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district. Stafffinds
the granting of the variance would constitute a special privilege.
Staff Report - Planning Con ssion Meeting of May 22, 2001
Revised Findings for Denial
PLN2001-40- 1353 Cameo Drive
Page 2 of 2
The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Stafffinds
that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Attachment #2
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. PLN2001-40
SITE ADDRESS: 1353 Cameo Drive
APPLICANT: Doug Watson
DATE: May 22, 2001
Findings for Approval of a Variance (PLN2001-40) to the Front Yard Setback to a Garage
Addition.
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2001-40:
The proposed project is consistent with the Single-Family Residential and Parking and
Loading Zoning Ordinances, with the approval of a variance to allow a 19 foot six (6)
inch setback to the garage.
2. The strict interpretation of the 25 foot setback for a garage creates a hardship for this
particular lot.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the Low Density Residential General Plan
Designation.
4. Granting of the variance does not create a pedestrian or vehicular safety problem due to
the effective setback of 25 feet from the public street right-of-way.
5. Approval of the variance would not be a granting of a special privilege that is contrary to
the intent or purpose of the zoning regulations or the General Plan.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes
that:
Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the required setback to the garage would
result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of the Zoning Ordinance.
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
property involved which do not apply generally to
properties.
or conditions applicable to the
other single-family residential
Strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the garage setback requirement would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other single-family
residential properties.
The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitation on other properties classified in the single-family residential zoning
district.
5. Granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Attachment #3
Page 1 of 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PLN2001-40
SITE ADDRESS: 1353 Cameo Drive.
APPLICANT: Doug Watson
DATE: May 22, 2001
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that (s)he is required to meet the
following conditions in accordance with the ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of
California. The lead department with which the applicant will work is identified on each
condition where necessary. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that (s)he 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
Planning Division:
Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Variance to allow the construction of a 709
square-foot addition to an existing single-family residence at 1353 Cameo Drive. Project
approval shall substantially comply with project plans prepared by Wiley Building
Design, that were received by the Planning Division on May 14, 2001, except as modified
by the Conditions of Approval herein.
Mechanical Equipment: All roof mounted and ground mounted equipment, i.e. air
conditioning units, shall be screened with architecturally compatible materials and located
to minimize any negative visual impact, subject to approval by the Community
Development Director, prior to the issuance of building permits.
o
Variance Approval Expiration: The Variance approval (PLN2001-40) for this project is
valid for a period of one (1) year from the Planning Commission approval. All conditions
of approval specified herein must be completed within one year from the date of
approval, or the permit shall be void.
4. Parking and Driveways: All parking and driveway areas shall be developed in compliance
with the standards in Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal Code.
5. Property Maintenance: The property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash,
debris and weeds at all times.
6. Storage of Boat in Garage: The boat shall be stored in the garage at all times, except for
short periods (not to exceed 24 hours) to allow for washing or trip preparation.
Conditions of Approval for File No. PLN2001-40
1353 Cameo Drive
Attachment #3
Pal~e 2 of 3
Building Division:
Permits Required: A building permit application shall be required for the proposed
structure. The building permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when
such work is part of the permit. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make
application to, and receive from, the Building Division, all applicable construction
permits.
8. Construction Plans: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet
of construction plans submitted for building permit.
9. Size of Plans: The maximum size of construction plans submitted for building permits
shall be 24 inches by 36 inches.
10.
Site Plan: Application for building permit shall include an accurate site plan that
identifies property lines and proposed structures with dimensions and elevations as
appropriate. The site plan shall also include site drainage details.
11.
Title 24 Energy compliance: California Title 24 Energy Standards Compliance forms
CF-1R and MF-1R shall be blue-lined on the construction plans. 8.5 by 11 calculations
shall be submitted as well.
12.
Special Inspections: When a special inspection is required by U.B.C. Section 1701, the
architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted
to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permits, in
accordance with U.B.C Section 106.3.5. Please obtain City of Campbell, Special
Inspection forms from the Building Inspection Division Counter.
13.
Non-Point Source Pollution Control: The City of Campbell, standard Santa Clara Valley
Non-point Source Pollution Control Program specification sheet shall be part of plan
submittal. The specification sheet (size 24" by 36") is available at the Building Division
service counter.
14.
Approvals Required: The project requires the following agency clearances prior to
issuance of the building permit:
a. West Valley Sanitation District (378-2407)
b. Santa Clara County Fire Department (378-4010)
c. School Districts:
i) Campbell Union School District (378-3405)
ii) Campbell Union High School District (371-0960)
iii) Moreland School District (379-1370)
iv) Cambrian School District (377-2103)
Conditions of Approval for File No. PLN2001-40
1353 Cameo Drive
Attachment #3
Page 3 of 3
Note: To Determine your district, contact the offices identified above. Obtain the School
District payment form from the City Building Division, after the Division has approved
the building permit application.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
15..Utilities: All new on-site Utilities shall be installed underground per Section 20.36.150
of the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions.
Applicant shall comply with all plan submittals, permitting, and fee requirements of the
serving utility companies.
16. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for the
site, the applicant shall pay the required Storm Drain Area fee which is $405.00.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
No Fire Department Conditions of Approval