Loading...
PC Min 04/08/2003CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY APRIL 8, 2003 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of April 8, 2003, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Hernandez and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Joseph D. Hernandez George Doorley Bob Alderete Elizabeth Gibbons Tom Francois Brad Jones Michael Rocha Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: Planner I: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Sharon Fierro Geoff I. Bradley Tim J. Haley Melinda Denis William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Francois, the Planning Commission minutes of March approved. (7-0) COMMUNICATIONS. None AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS None. Commissioner 25, 2003, were Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 2 ORAL REQUESTS There were no Oral Requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chair Hemandez read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. CIP 2003-2010 Staff Public Hearing to consider the City of Campbell's 2003-2010 Capital Improvement Plan for citywide projects. These projects are Categorically Exempt. Tentative City Council Meeting Date: May 22, 2003. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that this represents the annual review by the Planning Commission of the Capital Improvement Plan for citywide projects, which is a 7-year plan. · Stated that the Commission is asked to make the finding that the CIP is consistent with the General Plan and make the environmental determination. · Informed that the typical projects have been scaled back significantly due to the conditions of the economy. Projects include maintenance issues for buildings and streets. · Said that staff is recommending: that the Commission find the projects within the CIP to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA; that the Commission adopt a Resolution finding the CIP to be consistent with the City's General Plan; and that the Commission make the recommendation to Council to find the projects in the CIP to be Categorically Exempt. Commissioner Doorley asked about the total amount of funds budgeted for last year's projects. Director Sharon Fierro: · Stated that the amount available to fund Capital Projects is significantly less than last year due to the slowdown in the economy. Tax revenues are significantly lower than previous years and there will be no reserves to fund city projects. However, special funding sources such as Gas Tax, Park in Lieu Fees and Redevelopment revenues will fund the limited projects presented in the draft CIP proposals. · Informed that the CIP Reserves comes from the funds not expended in the previous fiscal year's operating budget. Commissioner Doorley asked where the funds come from for the proposed projects. Director Sharon Fierro: · Replied that the special funds will be used. These come from a variety of sources: Gas Tax, Park in lieu fees, redevelopment funds, etc. Advised that funds such as Gas Taxes are limited to specific uses. Two of the projects are for the Community Center and are to be funded by the Community Center Reserve Fund. These projects were considered to be important projects, the fire alarm systems for the Community Center as well as the upgrade to the HVAC system for Building B. Said that Park In-Lieu fees are available only to improve park facilities. Comcast franchise fees are used for cablecasting equipment upgrades. Ainsley Park improvements are to be funded by the Redvelopment Agency. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 3 · Stated that all the proposed projects in the CIP are Categorically Exempt. · Informed that a lot of projects were moved to the unfunded list so that they would not be lost. · Reminded that the CIP document is prepared every year. · Added that the amount of money available to fund projects not eligible for special funding is estimated to be approximately $500.00. In contrast, last year the CIP monies available for non-special fund projects were anticipated to be 1.7 million. Commissioner Francois mentioned the former proposal for a traffic signal at Harriet and McCoy, which is currently unfunded. It had been decided that traffic calming measures could be implemented instead of this signal and asked that the Harriet/McCoy area be included in the median landscaping project of the CIP. Director Sharon Fierro advised that the purpose this evening is simply to review consistency with the General Plan and make a CEQA determination. Suggested that Commissioner Francois submit a letter with his request to Council, the body with the authority to make changes and/or additions to the CIP. Chair Hemandez opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Hernandez opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3485 finding the 2003-2010 Capital Improvement Plan to be consistent with the City's General Plan and recommending that Council find the projects of the CIP to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones and Rocha NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Hemandez read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. 2. PLN2003-17 Razavi, R & N Hearing to consider the application of Ray and Nicole Razavi for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-17) to allow a 45-inch high (50 inches with the decorative posts) front yard fence, whereas Code limits such front yard fence heights to 42-inches, on property owned by Ray and Nicole Razavi located at 920 Marilyn Drive in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a fence exception to allow fencing in excess of 42-inches in height permitted under the R-1 Zoning Ordinance. · Said that the installed fence was inadvertently installed at a 45-inch height with 50-inch high decorative posts. · Informed that the Public Works and Community Development Directors can approve an exception to fence height requirements but that such an approval requires consent from adjacent neighbors. The applicant, in this case, has consent from three of four neighbors. · Said that the Traffic Engineer has made the determination that this fence, as installed, does not impact visibility. · Added that staff does not find that this fence creates an undesirable or unattractive situation. · Recommended that the Commission adopt a Resolution approving the fence at 45-inches in height with 50-inch high decorative posts. Commissioner Alderete pointed out that per the Municipal Code, the height of a fence is measured from the finished grade to the highest point. Therefore, he questioned whether the fence exception is 3-inches or 8-inches. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley agreed that portions are 50-inches high, the exception is being considered as 3-inches for the main portion of this 45-inch high fence with 8-inch exception for the 50-inch high decorative posts. Chair Hernandez asked what the intent is behind the Ordinance. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied that the intent is to have a fence at a safe height in terms of visibility and the issues of height includes the heights of planted shrubs. Commissioner Doorley presented the Site and Architectural Review follows: · SARC reviewed this project on March 25, 2003, and was supportive. Committee report as Chair Hernandez opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Tom Andrianos, 932 Marilyn Avenue, Campbell: · Advised that he purchased his home in 1999 and immediately began installing improvements to his property from new gutters to landscaping, spending several thousand dollars. · Said that his neighbor had initially said he had plans to install a picket fence. · Stated that they have been harassed about the issue of the fence and that when he suggested having a survey done, the neighbor refused, saying he planned to build a wall. · Said that the neighbor has purposely built a fence to spite them because they have complained about their dogs. · Added that he has spoken with a realtor who advised him that this fence is not compatible with the neighborhood and depreciates his property by 7 to 14 percent. · Pointed out that the General Plan discourages features that are not compatible with the surrounding area. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 5 · Described this fence as a "backyard fence in a front yard" and said that existing homes should not be walled off. · Added that they have not seen such a fence anywhere else in the City. · Asked that the fence be reduced or removed rather than be allowed to remain. · Provided photographs of his neighborhood. · Stated that this fence, as installed, blocks their site of view out of their front bedroom window. Chair Hernandez asked Mr. Tom Andrianos for more information about their mediation attempt. Mr. Tom Andrianos: · Said that the neighbors have two dogs that are not properly leashed. · Added that they had to call in a complaint to the Police Department. · Stated that the neighbors agreed to leash their dogs and fence in their front yard but learned at the Mediation with the Police Department that dogs must be enclosed within 6-foot high fences. Commissioner Alderete asked Mr. Andrianos if his family feels threatened by these dogs. Mr. Tom Andrianos replied that his wife runs a day care from their home and there is a liability issue if one of the dogs came over and bid one of her day care kids. Commissioner Alderete asked if they feel threatened. Mr. Tom Andrianos replied yes, adding that his son is deathly afraid of dogs. Mr. Ray Razavi, 920 Marilyn Drive, Campbell: · Stated that he is available for questions. · Said that he wanted to be on record as stating that what Mr. Tom Andrianos is saying is not true. Commissioner Rocha asked Mr. Ray Razavi if he had built this front yard fence to constrain his dogs. Mr. Ray Razavi: · Said that he spoke with Captain Patterson at the Campbell Police Department and was told that it would be okay to have a dog off leash in a fence in front yard. · Added that he gave his neighbors the opportunity to cooperate and has letters on file with the Police Department to attest to that fact. · Said that he had initiated mediation, sending two letters to the Andrianos family, but they refused so he went ahead and put the fence up. · Pointed out that he had undergone the Fence Exception process for their rear fence and would have done so in this case if he had thought it necessary. · Said that since the installation of his front yard fencing, his dogs have come out only on one occasion. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 6 · Added that after the installation of the fence, Mrs. Andrianos began taking pictures and took them to the Police Department and they ended up in mediation through the Police Department. · Said that he was made aware that his dogs would have to be secured by a six-foot high fence or be on leash. At one time, his dogs were on a five-foot leash and Mrs. Andrianos called the Police to complain about the length of the leash. · Reiterated that his dogs have only been out one time since the installation of the fence. · Added his suspicions that Mrs. Andrianos deliberately had her son pass by his fence simple to take a picture of his dogs. · Stated that the Andrianos family is the only one they have problems with on the block. · Pointed out that the Andrianos family installed a fence in their rear yard without benefit of a Fence Exception even though she is a City Commissioner. Commissioner Rocha asked Mr. Ray Razavi if it was his intention to have his dogs unleashed in his front yard. Mr. Ray Razavi assured that his dogs are only in the backyard. Commissioner Rocha sought assurances that the front yard fencing was not intended to serve as a pen for the Razavis' dogs. Mr. Ray Razavi: · Said that he they are gardening in front; they would like to have their dogs out with them. · Pointed out that the Andrianos family initiated the idea of their putting up a fence in their front yard. · Added that there have been no complaints since the fence was put up. · Assured that their intent is simply to provide privacy from their neighbor. · Said that racially biased comments have been directed to him. Commissioner Alderete: · Asked about Mr. Razavi's letter of February 27, 2003, wherein he mentions that he gave his fence contractor the Ordinance requirements for front yard fencing. · Added that since the fence was not built accordingly, does the contractor not have some liability. Mr. Ray Razavi said that he spoke with the Police Department prior to paying the balance on the fence bill. Added that he would have gone through the process for a fence exception as he did for his rear yard fence if he had thought it necessary. Chair Hernandez pointed out that the relations with their neighbors are strained and asked Mr. Razavi if he believes this relationship is unrepairable. Mr. Ray Razavi: · Said that he would live his own life and his neighbors would live their own lives. · Added that their comments are unnecessary. · Pointed out that their dogs are their children. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 7 · Assured that things should be fine. Commissioner Francois asked if the animals have been back in the front yard. Mr. Ray Razavi said not since the mediation. Commissioner Francois asked Mr. Razavi if he believes that his dogs are capable of jumping over the fence. Mr. Ray Razavi: · Replied "your guess is as good as mine." · Pointed out that these are large dogs, 90 pounds each. · Added that they have gone to obedience school and listen to him. · Stated that he does not want this situation to get any worse than it is now. Commissioner Francois said that the dogs need to be leashed when in front. Commissioner Rocha asked how old the dogs are. Mr. Ray Razavi replied two and three years old. Commissioner Jones queried whether the Commission is considering a dog or a fence issue. Director Sharon Fierro replied a fence issue. Commissioner Gibbons: · Pointed out that front yard fencing is not common in Campbell. · Asked Mr. Razavi whether he would have installed this type of fencing if he had been aware that his dogs could still not be secured unleashed within that fenced area. Mr. Ray Razavi replied that there is a very serious privacy issue here. Ms. Linda Andrianos, 932 Marilyn Avenue, Campbell: · Said that this not a privacy issue but a dog issue. · Reminded that she operates a day care and that there have been many instances where these dogs have been on her property, even knocking over a four year old child. · Said that Mr. Razavi was well aware of the requirement of either a six-foot high fence or leash to secure his dogs. · Said that her home has no line-of-site from the front with this newly installed fence. · Added that when they reached over to place sealant on the fence, the drippings killed all of her plantings along that fence. · Advised that the dogs were out today and last week too. Commissioner Gibbons asked Ms. Linda Andrianos if the key issue is the dogs. Ms. Linda Andrianos: · Replied no, the fence is the issue. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 8 · Added that the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan is clear on its intents not to have such fencing in the front of properties. · Advised that she is now looking for a new house to get away from this situation. Ms. Meg Stein, 1203 Hazel Avenue, Campbell: · Said she serves as liaison for the San Tomas Neighborhood Association. · Read the mission statement for the San Tomas Neighborhood Association whereby the goal is to review development projects for consistency with the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. · Added that as the representative of the San Tomas Neighborhood Association, she cannot comment on this fencing issue. · Said from a personal standpoint, she drove by the site and admits that she has never seen a fence quite like that in a front yard but cannot speak to the issue as she does not live in that neighborhood. Chair Hernandez closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Doorley: · Said that while he would not personally choose that style of fencing. · Said that while SARC considered this proposal, they considered whether lowering this fence by a few inches would offer visual improvement and came to the conclusion that the answer is no. · Stated that the applicant has the right to a solid fence even if he personally does not like it. · Said that the other issues between these neighbors were not discussed at SARC. Commissioner Rocha: · Said that he drove down the neighborhood and found a couple of other homes with front yard fencing including a cyclone fence at 735 Marilyn, wood fences at 805 and 852 Marilyn and a picket fence at 816 Marilyn. · Added that the neighborhood overall does not have a lot of solid wood fences. · Stated that this fencing appears to create an appearance of a fiefdom. · Said that he would not ask to have the fence taken down for a couple of inches. · Stated that property frontages look nicer without being fenced in. Commissioner Gibbons: · Concurred. · Said that the bulk of the fence is 45 inches versus the allowed 42-inch height with the posts being a decorative feature at 50-inches in height. · Stated that this error was not done intentionally. · Added that it is reasonable to assume that these dogs can jump over either a 42 or 45-inch high fence. Stated that SARC determined that there is no benefit in having the 45-inch fence reduced. Said that she believed this fence was built to keep the dogs in and that intention did not work out and the dogs must still be kept in the rear yard. Said that this is an unfortunate situation on many levels. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 9 Commissioner Francois: Stated that the issue is dogs. · Added that it is a clear-cut case that this is a couple of neighbors who cannot agree. · Agreed that this type of fencing would not be his choice but the applicant has a right to put up a fence. Commissioner Jones asked if there could be a limitation of the Fence Exception to the lifespan of this particular fence. City Attorney William Seligmann said that this restriction is possible, either by stating life of the fence or selecting a specific number of years for this approval. Chair Hemandez asked if there isn't a setback requirement for the placement of this fencing. Director Sharon Fierro replied that the fencing can be installed anywhere on the front yard as long as it is located on private property and not within the public right-of-way. Chair Hemandez: · Said that there are two issues, the dogs and safety. The dog issue is a civil matter. The 3- inch extra height does not impact the require visibility. · Expressed his regret that there are not more guidelines on this issue. Commissioner Alderete: · Said that the fence is already built and being considered after the fact. Said that the strained relations between these two neighbors compound this issue. · Pointed out that according to the Ordinance, this fence is actually a 50-inch fence with a requirement for an 8-inch exception. · Said that he wished this fence had a different design from a solid wall, pointing out that picket fences are more typical. Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that if this fence request were being reviewed prior to installation, the applicant would be limited to 42-inches in fence height and that the extra height is only being considered because the fence has already been installed. Commissioner Jones asked for the typical life of a wood fence. Director Sharon Fierro replied 10 to 15 years. Suggested that the fence be approved exactly as it is shown and not to be rebuilt. Commissioner Rocha said that he is a dog owner and believes there is a strong likelihood that these dogs could jump over this fence. Commissioner Alderete expressed concern over the potential liability for the City in the event that this fence is approved and a dog jumps over this fence and mauls a child. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the City is immune from liability over discretionary approvals such as this. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that through the arbitration process it has been determined that the dogs would be on leash when in the front yard. Chair Hernandez said that the issue of the dogs exists with or without the fence. Commissioner Doorley: Encouraged the Commission to consider the fence issue without the dog issue. Said that the issue is the excess height and whether the fence would significantly be improved if reduced by 3 inches. · Added that a second consideration is whether this fence was intentionally constructed higher than allowed and said that he did not think this is the case here. · Said that he would not be considering the dog issue in his considerations of this request. Commissioner Rocha mentioned Mr. Razavi's letter wherein he said he spoke with staff On the extra height and was assured that it would not be a big problem. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley admitted that he is the staff person Mr. Razavi spoke with and agreed that he had indicated to Mr. Razavi that this additional fence height would not be a big problem unless someone were to complain and it became a Code Enforcement action. Commissioner Alderete once again asked if the fence exception is for a 45 or 50-inch height. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied that the fence's highest point is at 50-inches in height but that if this request is approved, it should be for a 45-inch high fence with 50-inch high decorative posts. Commissioner Alderete said that he does not want to diminish the discrepancy of 8-inches from allowed height. Commissioner Jones suggested that no matter what the decision, this won't change a thing happening between these neighbors. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3486 approving a Fence Exception (PLN2003-17) to allow a 45-inch high (50-inches with the decorative posts) front yard fence on property owned by Ray and Nicole Razavi located at 920 Marilyn Drive with the added Condition that this approval is good for a 10-year period and the fence is to remain as it is today and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones and Rocha NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 11 Chair Hemandez reminded that this action is final in calendar 10 days unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Chair Hernandez read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record. 3. PLN2003-29 Castro, D. Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Dustin Castro for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-29) to allow a 52-inch high fence within the 15-foot front yard setback and 88-inch high street side yard, interior side yard and rear yard fencing on property owned by Mr. Dustin Castro located at 1058 Lenor Way in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Project Planner: Melinda Denis, Planner I Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Alderete, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the Fence Exception (PLN2003-29) application, for property owned by Mr. Dustin Castro located at 1058 Lenor Way, to the Planning Commission meeting of May 13, 2003. (7-0) Chair Hernandez read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record. 4. PLN2003-32 Clark, J & E Hearing to consider the application of Jerold and Elizabeth Clark for a Minor Modification to Sideyard Setback (PLN2003-32) to allow an addition to an existing two-story residence on property owned by Jerold and Elizabeth Clark located at 940 Harriet Avenue in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Project Planner: Melinda Denis, Planner I Ms. Melinda Denis, Planner I, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Minor Modification to the sideyard setback to allow an addition to an existing two-story residence, constructed in 1979. · Described the project as a 2,552 square foot, two-story single-family home located on a flag lot on the south side of Harriet Avenue. · Said that the site is developed at 5.6 units per gross acre, consistent with the General Plan. The zoning is R-l-6 and the project is consistent with the development standards of the R- 1-6 and San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan, with approval of a Minor Modification. Said that the site is surrounded by single-family residences and the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood and will not change the character and/or use of the home. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 12 · Added that there are no privacy impacts, as the closest adjacent home faces Westmont Avenue. This property owner has submitted a letter stating they have no objection to this Minor Modification. · Recommended approval. Commissioner Alderete asked Planner Melinda Denis if this property can even be seen from the street. Planner Melinda Denis replied no. Commissioner Alderete stated that no one will see this. Chair Hernandez opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No 4. Chair Hernandez closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Rocha said that he would simply take staff's recommendation on faith and has no concerns. Commissioner Doorley presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC reviewed this proposal on April 8th and agreed that this project would look worse without this Minor Modification to the sideyard setback. · Added that SARC considered this request for a Minor Modification to be a benefit to the design on the existing building line. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3487 granting a Minor Modification (PLN2003-32) to allow an addition to an existing two- story residence on property owned by Jerold and Elizabeth Clark located at 940 Harriet Avenue and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones and Rocha NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Hernandez reminded that this action is final in calendar 10 days unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. 5. Cancellation of April 22, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 13 Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Francois, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission cancelled the regular Planning Commission meeting of April 22, 2003. (7-0) 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 there will be three items on the May 13th agenda, the relocation of Andy's BBQ, the continued Fence Exception on Lenor Way and the Marriott's hotel project. · Said that a Study Session is set for Tuesday, April 15th to review revised plans for the hotel site project. The meeting will occur at 6 p.m. in the Doetsch Conference Room. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. to the next Regular Public Hearing on May 17, 2003, (the April 22, 2003, meeting has been cancelled) in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: ATTEST: