Chapt 21.55-Res Setbacks (1996)Office ~)f the County Clerk
19 i North First Street
San Jose, California 95 i ! 3
(408) 2 9(3~2 9C:~
*ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
NAME OF LEAD AGENCY:
City of Campbell
NAME OF APPLICAN~
City of Campbell
CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT~.
1. ( )
2. ( )
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
--NO FEE--
NOTICE OF EXEMPTION/STATEMENT OF EXEMPTION
--NO FEE--
FOR COURT USE ONLY
E003357
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
( , ) A--NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 21080(C) OF THE PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE
$1,250.00 (Twelve Hundred Fifty Dollars)--STATE FILING FEE
$25.00 (Twenty-five Dollars)--CLERK FEE
( x ) B--CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION DE MINIMIS IMPACT FINDING --NO FEE--
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
( ) A--ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 21152 OF THE
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
$850.00 (Eight Hundred Fifty DolIars)--STATE FILING FEE
$25.00 (Twenty-Five DolIars)--CLERK FEE
) B--CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION DE MINIMIS IMPACT FINDING --NO FEE--
*THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND FILED WITH ALL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
FILED WITH THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.
REV 6/91
MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: COUNTY CLERK
Appendix H
Hotice of Determination
CITY JIF I [MPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA e5008
To: Office of Planning and Research
-- 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
X
County Clerk's Office
Santa Clara County
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
City of Campbell
Planning Department
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
£00335?
Subject:
Filing of Notice of Determination In compliance with $ectlon 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code.
TA 96-01 Text Amendment - Residential Corner Setbacks
Project Title
Tim J. Haley (408) 866-2144
State Clearinghouse Number
(If submiued to Clearinghouse)
Citywide, Campbell,
Lead Agency
Contact Pe~on
Santa Clara County
Area Code~T¢lephone/Extension
Project Location (include county)
Project Description:
This is to advise that thc City of Campbell .has approved the above described project on
September 17, 1996 and has made thc following determinafions regarding the abovc descn'b~ pmjecc
1. The project [[~]will IX]will not] have a significant effect on the environment.
2. ['-I An Environmcn*,al hnpact Report was prep~v,d tka' this p, ojc~. ~uant to gi¢ p~uvisions of CEQA.
[] A Ncgadv¢ Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant ~ the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures []~Jwere IX'lwe~e not] made a condition of the approval of the project.
4. A statement of Ove~ding Cona'derations I[]was [twas not] adopmt for this project.
$. Findings II![]were []were not] made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
This is m certify that the final FIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the Gene~ PubUc at:
$ignalu~e (Public A~ency)
Dam received for filing at OPR:
October 1, 1996
- 1996
Associate Planner
OCr $ . 1996 Date NOV. 3
POSTED ON THROUGH
IN THE OFF,CE OF THE COUNTY CLERK
STEPHEN V. LOVE, COUNTY CLERK
T~de
Revised October 1989
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAM~z?-
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title/Location (include county):
TA 96-01 (Citywide)
City of Campbell
7O N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Santa Clara County
003357
Project Description:
Text Amendment requiring greater streetyard setbacks on residential comer lots
Findings of Exemption (attach as necessary):
The City Council granted a Negative Declaration based upon the findings in the
initial study prepared for this project which determined that no effects to wildlife or
the environment will result from the development of this project.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the
project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife
resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Tim Haley for ' ~r~
Steven Piasecki, Planning Official
Title: Associate Planner
City of Campbell
Date: September 30, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Tim Haley, Associate Planner
.o~'CA~t~
CITY OF CAMPBELL
DATE: September 19, 1996
FROM:
Anne Bybee, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Ordinance 1940 Amending CMC Chapters 21.55 and 21.64
At its regular meeting of September 17, 1996, the City Council gave second reading to
Ordinance 1940 amending Campbell Municipal Code Chapter 21.55 (Residential Setbacks and
Open Space) and Chapter 21.64 (Non-Conforming Buildings) to require greater sideyard setbacks
for comer residential lots and to allow residential additions to non-conforming structures.
Attached is a certified copy of Ordinance 1940 for your records. The Ordinance will be
published in the Campbell Express on September 25, 1996, and will be codified by Book
Publishing in the next municipal code supplement.
ORDINANCE NO. 1940
BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL AMENDING CHAPTER 21.55,
RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS AND OPEN SPACE; SECTION
21.64.060, EXCEPTIONS TO NON-CONFORMING
BUILDINGS; AND THE LAND USE POLICIES SECTION B,
SETBACKS OF THE SAN TOMAS AREA
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. (TA 96-01)
The City Council of the City of Campbell does ordain as follows:
SECTION ONE: That Sections 21.55.030 and 21.64.060 of the Campbell M, mieipal
Code and the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan, Land Use Policies, Section B -
Setbacks, are hereby changed and amended by adopting "Exlu'bit A" entitled
Recommended Amendments (TA 96-01).
SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its
passage and adoption and shall be published once within fifteen (15) days upon passage
and adoption in the Campbell Express, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of
Campbell, County of Santa Clara.
PASSED AND ADOPTED thi.~ 17th day of September, 1996, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Burr, Conant, Watson, Furtado, Dougherty
COUNC ILIh~]~IVJ]~ ERS ~ None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
R~e~t ~. Doughe~v~ayol/
Anne Bybee, City Clerk
THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT I$ A TRUE
AND CORRECT .COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE.
ATTEST: AN.~IE-'~YEEE, ClT~CLERK, CITY
Exhibit A
Recommended Amendments: New language shown in italics.
Amend Section 21.55.030 (Residential Setbacks and Open Space) to read:
21.55.030 Side yard setback. Unless otherwise provided in this title, a minirrmm side yard of
the greater of frye feet, or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the property
line, shall be maintained on all residentially zoned lots, except that corner lots shall maintain
a minimum street side yard setback of 12 feet from the building wail to the street property
line.
Replace: Existing Section 21.64.060 (Exceptions to Non-Conforming Buildings) with:
21.64.60 Exceptions. A. ,4 building or structure that fails to meet the setback that fails to
meet the setback requirements for the district in which it is located may be added to or
enlarged in conformance with the following criteria:
2.
3.
4.
5.
The budding or structure was lawfully constructed;
The addition or enlargement is limited to the first floor;
The addition or enlargement does not decrease the existing setbacks
Any upper story additions comply with the current setback requirements; and
The decision maker of the Site and ,4rchitectural review of the addition or
enlargement finds that the addition or enlargement finds that the addition or
enlargement finds that the addition or enlargement will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood.
San Tomas Neighborhood Plan - Land Use Policies - Section B: Setbacks
Add: Comer Lots.
minimum street side yard setback of 12 feet shall be provided on corner lots.
Harry Greenwood, 1609 Hacienda Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council
and spoke in support of staff recommendation//2 to delay closure of the access for 6
months, encourage residents to form a Neighborhood Watch Program, and gather data
from the neighborhood and Police Department to determine the effectiveness of the
Neighborhood Watch Program.
Susanne Waher, 1381 Estrellita Way, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and
stated that if the pedestrian access is closed the connection to both neighborhoods will
be lost.
Trudy Vierra, 1133 Archer Way, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke
in support of closing the pedestrian access between Archer Way and Hacienda Avenue.
Kay Price, 1126 Archer Way, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in
support of closing the pedestrian access between Archer Way and Hacienda Avenue.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Dougherty closed the public hearing.
In the discussion that followed, it was the consensus of the City Council to close the
pedestrian access. City Councilmembers also discussed how the access will be closed,
and expressed concerns that individuals might be able to access the pathway until it has
been closed permanently and the right-of-way has been abandoned and property owners
have extended their fences.
M/S: Burr/Conant - that the City Council authorize the immediate closure of the
pedestrian acess between Hacienda Avenue and Archer Way, and direct staff to
initiate procedures to abandon the right of way and to monitor police incidents on
neighboring streets. Motion adopted unanimously.
17.
City-initiated Text Amendment to Chapter 21.55 (Residential Setbacks and Open
Space) and Chapter 21.64 (Non-conforming Buildings) of the Zoning Ordinance to
Require Greater Sideyard Setbacks for Comer Residential Lots and to Allow
Residential Additions to Non-conforming Structures (Introduction of Ordlnance/Roll
Call Vote)
This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider a City-initiated Text
Amendment to Chapter 21.55 (Residential Setbacks and Open Space) and Chapter 21.64
(Non-conforming Buildings) of the Zoning Ordinance to require greater sideyard setbacks
for comer residential lots and to allow residential additions to non-conforming structures.
Associate Planner Haley - Staff Report dated September 3, 1996.
Mayor Dougherty declared the public hearing open and.asked if anyone in the audience
wished to be heard.
There being no one wishing to speak, Mayor Dougherty closed the public hearing.
Minutes of 9/3/96 City Council Meeting
M/S: Watson/Burr - to grant a Negative Declaration for the proposed text
amendments and to introduce Ordinance 1940 amending Chapter 21.55, Residential
Setbacks and Open Space; Section 21.64.060, Exceptions to Non-Conforming
Buildings; and the Land Use Policies Section B, Setbacks of the San Tomas Area
Neighborhood Plan (TA 96-01), for f'wst reading. Motion adopted by the following
roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Burr, Conant, Watson, Furtado, Dougherty
NOES: Councilmembers: None
The City Clerk read the tide of Ordinance No. 1940.
M/S: Burr/Watson - that further reading of Ordinance 1940 be waived. Motion
adopted unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
18. Award of Contract - Street Sweeping Services (ResolutionfRoll Call Vote)
Public Works Director Kass - Staff Report dated September 3, 1996.
M/S: Burr/Watson - to adopt Resolution 9131 awarding SC 97-01, Annual Street
Sweeping, to Piazza Mobil Sweeping for street sweeping for a term from September
16, 1996 through June 30, 1997, with the option of extending the contract for two
additional years upon mutual agreement between the City and Piazza Mobil
Sweeping. Motion adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Burr, Conant, Watson, Furtado, Dougherty
NOES: Councilmembers: None
NEW BUSINESS
19.
Budget Adjustment for Unanticipated Tenant Improvements at Community Center
(Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Community Center Manager Klemczak - Staff Report dated September 3, 1996.
M/S: Watson/Furtado - to adopt Resolution 9132 authorizing a budget adjustment
for Capital Improvement Project//96-04 to fund necessary tenant improvements.
Motion adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Burr, Conant, Watson, Furtado, Dougherty
NOES: Councilmembers: None
Minutes of 9/3/96 City Council Meeting 9
Council
ITEM NO:
CATEGORY:
MEETING DATE:
Public Heating
September 3:1996
TITLE
City initiated Text Amendment to Chapter 21.55 (Residential Setbacks and Open Space)
and Chapter 21.64 (Non-conforming Buildings) of the Zoning Ordinance to Require
Greater Sideyard Setbacks for Corner Residential Lots and to Allow Residential Additions
to Non-conforming Structures (Introduction of Ordinance/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following action:
1. Grant a negative Declaration for the proposed text amendments and
Take first reading of the attached ordinance amending sections 21.55.030 and
21.64.060 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Land Use Policies of the San Tomas
Neighborhood Plan
BACKGROUND
The current Zoning Ordinance provides for required residential setbacks in Chapter 21.55
and in the San Tomas Neighborhood Plan. This chapter and neighborhood plan describes
setbacks for front, side and rear yards, however, it does not differentiate setbacks for
comer lots. The application of the current minimum setbacks for comer side yards results
in a setback from a street property line at comers of 5 feet or 50 percent of the height of
the wall along that property line in most residential districts and a minimum of 8 feet or 60
percent of the wall height within the San Tomas Neighborhood.
ANALYSIS
This setback standard is considered inadequate from both a safety standpoint for traffic
visibility and an aesthetic standpoint in terms of desired open spaces in the community.
Most communities require side yard setbacks from 9 feet to 15 feet on comer lots between
buildings and the street property line.
The Table # 1 summarizes the comer lot setbacks for various communities in the
Santa Clara Valley:
City Council Report - September 3,
TA 96 -01
Page 2
1996
Table # 1 -- Comer Lot Residential Setbacks
Cupertino 12'
Los G-atos 15' to 20'
Mountain View* 15'
Sunnyvale 9'
Santa Clara 15'
Saratoga** 15' to 25'
Campbell*** 5' to 8'
Mountain View-Standard for comer lots 40' to 65' wide.
Saratoga- Comer lots created after 1992
Campbell- 8' standard for lots with zoning of R-l-8 through R-l-16
The above table illustrates that Campbell's current comer yard setback is the least
restrictive of the surveyed cities.
Fencing Ordinance Comparison: The fence ordinance provisions are provided in section
21.59.090 of the Zoning Ordinance. Generally, these provisions allow 6' fences up to and
along street side yard property lines for comer lots which share common rear property lines
and require a 15' setback for comer lots which share a rear yard property line with an
adjacent side yard property line. The required setback for fences is based upon objectives
to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety and to create desirable open spaces for street yard
frontages of buildings.
The current side yard setback for residential buildings of 5' or one half the height of the
building wall in most residential districts and the setback of 8' or 60 percent of the wall
height in the San Tomas Neighborhood is less restrictive than the required fencing
standard. As such, the current setback does not achieve the intent to provide adequate
light, air and recreational areas as provided in the chapter on residential setbacks and open
space.
Commercial/Industrial Setbacks · The Zoning Ordinance establishes setbacks for
commercial and industrial uses under the provisions of the site and architectural review
process and the Planning Commission's approval. Consequently, these setbacks are
City Council Report - September 3,
TA 96 -01
Page 3
1996
establighed by the Planning Commigsion's specific approval of a project. The Planning
Commigsion decision is based upon safety concerns as well as the appropriate setback for
the scale of size of the industrial or commercial building. The Professional Office zone
requires a minimum 15 ' street yard setback.
Non Conforming Buildings: Whenever new development standards are adopted a potential
exists to create structures which were legally constructed as non conforming buildings due
to the change in the development standards. Section 21.64.060 "Exceptions" of the zoning
ordinance allows additions to such buildings in a conforming manner, subject to approval of
a Conditional Use Permit
Additionally, properties located in the San Tomas Neighborhood are permitted to extend
along existing building lines at the first floor only. Staff is recommending that a similar
policy to that adopted for the San Tomas Neighborhood be incorporated into this section
for structures that are rendered non conforming due to the insa~fficient setbacks. This
amendment will allow similar treatment to all structures in the community which are
rendered non conforming due to changes in setback requirements.
Additionally, staff is recommending that property owners be allowed to enlarge a structure
in a conforming manner without approval of a conditional use permit. This process would
be similar to the approval process established in the San Tomas Area.
Degree of Non Conforming Structures: The current development standards for comer lots
were adopted in early 1983. The majority of residences which have been constructed on
comer lots since that time have maintained a 15 ' setback bom both street frontages.
Consequently, the number of structures which would be rendered non conforming due to a
more restrictive side yard setback is considered small.
Development Intensity_: Residential structures are limited in size by the adopted
development standards which restrict the percentage of lot coverage (building footprint)
and regulations and the floor area ratio (FAR). The proposed modification in the required
comer lot street side yard setback will reduce the setback envelope of the building thus
limiting the building placement, however, the additional setback will not impact the size of
the residential structure on standard residential lots.
The building envelope on a standard R-l-6 single family lot of 6000 square foot lot is
currently 4000 square feet. This envelope is reduced to 3440 square feet with a 12' setback
and 3400 square feet with a 15 setback. Although the resulting building envelope is smaller,
a maximum building footprint of 40 percent may still be achieved as provided in the Zoning
Ordinance for Residential Districts.
City Council Report - September 3, 1996
TA 96 -01
Page 4
Recommended Amendments: New language shown in italics
Add:
21.55.030 Side yard setback. Unless othenvise provided in this title, a minimum side yard
of the greater of five feet, or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the
property line, shall be maintained on all residentially zoned lots, except that corner lots
shall maintain a minimum street side yard setback of 12 'from the building wall to the
street property line.
Replace: Existing section 21.64.050 with
21.64.50 Exceptions. A. A building
or structure that fails to meet the setback
requirements for the district in which it is located may be added to or enlarged in
conformance with the following criteria:
1. The building or structure was lawfully constructe&
2. The addition or enlargement is limited to the first floor;
3. The addition or enlargement does not decrease the existing setbacks;
4. Any upper story additions comply with the current setback requirements; and
5. The decision maker of the Site and architectural review of the addition or enlargement
finds that the addition or enlargement will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood.
San Tomas Neighborhood Plan
Land Use Policies B. Setbacks
Add: Corner Lots.
A minimum street side yard setback of 12' shall be provided on corner lots
Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission at its meeting of July 23, 1996
adopted resolution 3036 recommending approval of the proposed text amendments with a
(6-0-0-1) Vote, with Commissioner Jones abstaining.
FISCAL 1MPACTS
None
City Council Report - September 3, 1996
TA 96 -01
Page 5
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the proposed amendments with modifications.
2. Deny the proposed text amendments.
3. Continue for further review.
Attachments:
1. Drat~ Ordinance and Amendments
2. Planning Commiasion Resolution and Minutes
3. Planning Commission StaffReport July 23, 1996 with attachments
Prepared by:
Tim J.~, As~Planner
Rexaewed by:
S"-'~'teve Jqasecki, ~ommunity Development
Director
Approved by:
Barbara Lee, Interim City Manager
Proof of Publication
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
11
il
CAMBRIAN NEWS
334 E. Campbell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 374-9700
Fax: (408) 374-0813
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Santa Clara
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am
the principal Clerk of the printer of the Campbell Express/
Cambrian News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed
and published each Wednesday in the City of Campbell,
California, County of Santa Clara, and which newspaper has
been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Su-
perior Court of the County of Santa Clara, State of Califor-
nia, under the date of February 8, 1956. Case number 96461
that the notice of which is annexed is a printed copy (set in
type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each
regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof in the following dates, to-wit:
ali in the year 19 ~/?/,9
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego-
ing is true and correct.
Dated at San Jose, California, this
dayof //~J' l ~ ' ~
Signature
This space is fox ~e County Clerk's filing stamp.
Proof of Publication of
Place
O,~CH/k?,.O
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
that the City Council of the City
of Campbell has set the hour of
7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter,
on Tuesday, September 3,
1996, in the City Hall Council
Chamber, 70 North First Street,
Campbell, California, as the'
time and place for a public'
hearing to consider a City-
initiated application for ap-
proval of a T~xt Amendment to~
Chapter 21.55 (Residential Set-'
backs and Open Space) and
Chapter 21.64 (Non-conforming
Buildings) of the Zoning Or-
dinance, and Land Use Policies
B and E of the San Tomas Area
Neighborhood Plan to require'
greater sideyard setbacks for
corner residential lots and .to
allow residential additions to
non-conforming structures.'
Planning Department File No.'
TA 96-01.
Notice is further given that a
Draft Negative Declaration has
been prepared for this project.
This certifies that no signifi-
cant environmental impacts
are anticipated with the proj-
ect. Copies of the Draft
Negative Declaration, Initial.
Study, and other documenta-
tion are available for review at
the Department of Community
Development, 70 N. First
Street, Campbell, California.
Interested persons may ap-
pear and be heard at the public
hearing. Please be advised that
if you challenge the City's deci-.
sion on this matter in court,
you may be limited to ralsingl
only those issues you or some-
one else raised at the public
hearing described in this
notice or in written cor-~
respondence delivered to the
City Clerk at, or prior to, the
public hearing.
In compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities
Act, listening assistive devices
are available for all meetings
held in the Council Chambers.
If you require accommodation,~
please contact the City Clerk's
Office at (408) 866-2117 at least'
one week in advance of the
meeting.
CiTY COUNCIL
CITY OF CAMPBELL
ANNE BYBEE, City Clerk
Pub: August 21, 1996
s Space
Plann/ng Commission Minutes of July 23, 1996
Page 13
Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 3 into the record.
3. TA 96-01
Continued Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated application for a Text
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require greater sideyard setbacks for
corner residential lots.
Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· This item was continued from the July 9~ Planning Commi.~sion meeting to allow staff
additional time to work with the City Attorney on the language of the Text Amendment as
it pertained to non-conforming buildings.
· The proposal is for City-wide rather than just the San Tomas Area.
· Staffis recommending 12 foot setbacks.
· Staff recommends the adoption of a Negative Declaration and a Resolution recommending
that the City Council adopt thi.~ Text Amendment, including a change in the STANP as it
pertains to sideyard setbacks.
Chairman Lindstrom asked the Commi.~sion if they had questions for staff
Commi.~sioner Jones asked City Attorney Seligmann whether he should abstain since his home
is on a corner lot.
City Attorney Seligmann advised him to abstain from this vote.
Chairman Lindstrom opened Public Hearing No. 3.
There were no parties present to address Item No. 3.
Chairman Lindstrom dosed Public Hearing No. 3.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Alne,
the Planning Commission moved to adopt Resolution No. 3036,
recommending approval of a Text .Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
to require greater sideyard setbacks for corner, residential lots, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Alne, Gibbons, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-
Kennedy
None
None
Jones
Planning Commi.~sion Minutes of July 23, 1996
Page 14
Mr. Steve Piascki advised that thi,q matter is scheduled for the
meeting.
September 3rd City Council
Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 4 into the record.
4. SA 96-31
Hearing to consider the application of Mr. George Laine, on behalf of
Barnes & Noble, for approval if a Sign Application to allow three wall
signs for a book store to be located at 1875 S. Bascom Avenue in a C-2-
S (General Commercial) Zoning District.
Mr. Darryl M. Jones, Senior Planner, presented the staffreport as follows:
Many changes have occurred at Pmneyard. Outback will open in August. Barnes & Noble
in October. The project is coming to some closure.
· Barnes & Noble is located adjacent to Hollywood Video.
· The applicant started with a request for signage reading Barnes & Noble Music & Caf6 with
a total of 320 square feet.
· The second proposal was for 208 square feet of signage, eliminating the words Music &
Caf6.
· The third proposal was for 124 square feet ofsignage with 2-foot, 8-inch letters.
· In relation to the building ~ontage, thi.q is a sign ratio of 64%.
· Lettering is white with green return or shadow line. On the tower signs, a bronze brown
background is used.
· In the staffreport, a matrix listing previous Planning Commi,esion decisions and criteria used
is provided.
This site is closer to street than Hollywood Video
SARC reviewed this proposal and will present a report.
Commi,qsioner Lowe asked if any signs are proposed on the street.
Mr. Darryl Jones advised that a sign application for a center sign proposal will be presented at
the upcoming SARC meeting. A panel for Barnes & Noble is proposed.
Commi.qsioner Lowe asked for clarification as to how many signs a business is allowed.
Mr. Darryl Jones replied two signs. One wall, one monument.
RESOLUTION NO. 3036
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE (PER EXHIBIT #1) TO
REQUIRE GREATER SIDEYARD SETBACKS FOR
CORNER RESIDENTIAL LOTS. FlI.g. NO. TA 96-01.
ARer notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and aRer presentation by the
CommRnity 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 TA 96-01'
This proposed text amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the
purposes of providing adequate residential setbacks on comers.
The proposed amendment will require desirable building setbacks on comer lots
to ensure adequate light, air and recreational areas.
The proposed text amendment will ensure adequate sight visfoility at comers to
improve traffic safety.
4. The proposed text amendment will not have a significant effect on the
environment.
The proposed text amendment will not have a si.~tmificant effect on plant and animal
life or resources.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commi.qsion further finds and
concludes that:
The proposed text amendment will require a more desirable setback for residential
buildings on comer lots.
The increased side yard setback will aid in the harmonious development of the
community°
The increased setback will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the
city
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3036
TA 96-01 - Sideyard Setbacks
Page 2
4. The proposed setback permits a reasonable building area for comer residential lots.
Further, the applicants are notified as part of this application that they are required to
comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Csmpbell and the State of
California which pertain to this application and are not herein specified. And, that this
approval is granted subject to the following Conditions of ApprovaL
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23ra day of July, 1996, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
Alne, Gz~obons, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe,
Meyer-Kennedy
None
None
Jones
APPROVED:
Mel Lindstrom, Chair
Exhibit # 1
Recommended Amendments: New language shown in italics.
Add: Chapter 21.55 Residential Setbacks and Open Space
21.55.030 Side yard setback. Unless otherwise provided in thi~ title, a minimum side yard
of the greater of five feet, or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the
property line, shall be maintained on all residentially zoned lots, except that corner lots
shall maintain a minimum street side yard setback of 12 feet from the building wall to
the street property line.
Replace: Existing Section 21.64.060 Exceptions to Non-Conforming Buildings
21.64.60 21.64.050 Exceptions. A. A building or structure that fails to meet the setback
that fails to meet the setback requirements for the district m which it is located may be
added to or enlarged in conformance with the following criteria:
1. The building or structure was lawfully constructed;
2. The addition or enlargement is limited to the first floor;
3. The _addition or enlargement does not decrease the existing setbacks
4. Any upper story additions comply with the current setback requirements; and
5. The decision maker of the Site and Architectural review of the oddition or
enlargement finds that the addition or enlargement finds that the addition or
enlargement fincls that the addition or enlargement will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood.
San Tomas Neighborhood Plan - Land Use Poficies - Section B: Setbaek.~
Add: Corner Lots.
A minimum street side yard setback of 12feet shall be provided on corner lots.
ITEM NO. 3
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF JULY 23, 1996
TA 96-01
Public Hearing to consider the city-initiated application for approval of a Text
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require greater side yard setbacks for
comer residential lots.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
Recommend that the City Council Grant a Negative Declaration for this amendment;
and
Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City
Council approve a text amendment to sections 21.55.030 and 21.64.060 of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Land Use Policies of the San Tomas Neighborhood Plan requiring
greater side yard setbacks on comer lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial study has been conducted for this project for the Commission's consideration.
concludes this project will not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore,
Negative Declaration was prepared.
It
BACKGROUND
This item was continued from the previous Planning Commission of July 9, 1996 so that staff
could further review the proposed language changes regarding extensions or additions to non
conforming structures with the City Attorney. Based upon this discussion, staff has
recommended revised language as described further in this report.
The intent of this language is to provided owners of non conforming buildings due to changes
in setback requirements an opportunity to add to or enlarge their structures along existing first
floor building lines without approval of a conditional use permit. The current ordinance
requires approval of a conditional use permit for such additions except as provided in the San
Tomas Neighborhood Plan. Staff is recommending that all non conforming buildings be
addressed similarly in the community and that the provisions of the San Tomas Neighborhood
Plan regarding additions to non conforming buildings be applied city wide.
The proposed language also addresses the following intent:
1)
To limit the exception to first floor additions only.
To allow decision makers of an application an opportunity to ensure that the proposed
addition is not detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare of persons residing
or working in the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Staff Report - July 23, 1996
TA 96-01 - Comer Lot Residential Setbacks
Page 2
Comer Setbacks:
The current Zoning Ordinance provides for required residential setbacks in Chapter 21.55 and
in the San Tomas Neighborhood Plan. This chapter and neighborhood plan describe setbacks
for front, side and rear yards, however, it does not differentiate setback requirements for
comer lots. The application of the current minimum setbacks for comer lot side yards results in
a setback from a street property line at comers of 5 feet or 50 percent of the height of the
building wall along that property line in most residential zoning districts and a minimum of 8
feet or 60 percent of the wall height within the San Tomas Neighborhood.
DISCUSSION
This setback standard is considered inadequate from both a safety standpoint for traffic
visibility and an aesthetic standpoint in terms of desired open spaces in the community. Most
communities require side yard setbacks of 9 to 15 feet on comer lots between buildings and the
street property line.
The Table # 1 summarizes the corner lot setbacks for various communities in the Santa Clara
Valley:
Table #1 -- Comer Lot Residential Setbacks
Cupertino 12'
Los Gatos 15' to 20'
Mountain View* 15'
Sunnyvale 9'
Santa Clara 15'
Saratoga** 15' to 25'
Campbell*** 5' to 8'
* Mountain View-Standard for comer lots 40' to 65' wide.
** Saratoga- Comer lots created after 1992
*** Campbell- 8' standard for lots with zoning of R-l-8 through R-l-16
The above table illustrates that Campbell's current comer yard setback is the least restrictive of
the surveyed cities.
Planning Commission Staff Report - July 23, 1996
TA 96-01 - Comer Lot Residential Setbacks
Page 3
Fencing Setbacks Comparison: Fencing provisions are provided in section 21.59.090 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Generally, these provisions allow 6' fences up to and along street side yard
property lines for corner lots which share common rear property lines, and require a 15'
setback for comer lots which share a rear yard and a side yard property line. The required
setback for fences is based upon objectives to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety and to
create desirable open spaces for street yard frontages of buildings.
The current side yard setback for residential buildings of 5' or one half the height of the
building wall in most residential districts and the setback of 8' or 60 percent of the wall height
in the San Tomas Neighborhood is less restrictive than the required fencing standard. As such,
the current setback does not achieve the intent to provide adequate light, air and recreational
areas as provided in the chapter on residential setbacks and open space.
Commercial/Industrial Setbacks: The Zoning Ordinance establishes setbacks for commercial
and industrial uses under the provisions of the site and architectural review process and the
Planning Commission's approval. Consequently, these setbacks are established by the Planning
Commission's specific approval of a project. The Planning Commission decision is based upon
safety concerns as well as the appropriate setback for the scale of size of the industrial or
commercial building. The Professional Office zone requires a minimum 15 ' street yard setback.
Non Conforming Buildings: Whenever new development standards are adopted a potential
exists to create structures which were legally constructed as non conforming buildings due to
the change in the development standards. Section 21.64.060 "Exceptions" of the zoning
ordinance allows additions to such buildings in a conforming manner, subject to approval of a
Conditional Use Permit.
Additionally, properties located in the San Tomas Neighborhood are permitted to extend along
existing building lines on the first floor only. Staff is recommending that a similar policy to that
adopted for the San Tomas Neighborhood be incorporated into this section for structures that
are rendered non conforming due to insufficient setbacks. This amendment will allow similar
treatment to all structures in the community which are rendered non conforming due to changes
in setback requirements.
Additionally, staff is recommending that property owners be allowed to enlarge a structure in a
conforming manner without approval of a conditional use permit. This process would be similar
to the approval process established in the San Tomas Area.
Planning Commission Staff'Report - July 23, 1996
TA 96-01 - Coruer Lot Residential Setbacks
Page 4
Degree of Non Conforming Structures: The current development standards for coruer lots
were adopted in early 1983. The majority of residences which have been constructed on coruer
lots since that time have maintained a 15 ' setback from both street frontages. Consequently,
the number of structures which would be rendered non conforming due to a more restrictive
side yard setback is considered small.
Development Intensity: Residential structures are limited in size by the adopted development
standards which restrict the percentage of lot coverage (building footprint) and regulations and
the floor area ratio (FAR). The proposed modification in the required coruer lot street side yard
setback will reduce the setback envelope of the building thus limiting the building placement,
however, the additional setback will not impact the size of the residential structure on standard
residential lots.
The building envelope on a standard R-1-6 single family lot of 6000 square foot lot is currently
4,000 square feet. This envelope is reduced to 3,440 square feet with a 12' setback and 3,400
square feet with a 15 setback. Although the resulting building envelope is smaller, a maximum
building footprint of 40 percent may still be achieved as provided in the Zoning Ordinance for
Residential Districts.
Recommended Amendments: New language shown in italics
Add:
21.55.030 Side yard setback. Unless otherwise provided in this title, a minimum side yard of
the greater of five feet, or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the property line,
shall be maintained on all residentially zoned lots, except that corner lots shall maintain a
minimum street side yard setback of 12 feet from the building wall to the street property line.
Replace: Existing section 21.64.060 with
21.64.60 Exceptions. A. A building or structure that fails to meet the setback requirements
for the district in which it is located may be added to or enlarged in conformance with the
following criteria:
1. The building or structure was legally constructe&
2. The addition or enlargement is limited to the first floor;
The addition or enlargement does not encroach further into the setback area than
the existing wall lines of the structure;
Planning Commission Staff Report - July 23, 1996
TA 96-01 - Comer Lot Residential Setbacks
Page 5
5.
Any upper story additions comply with the current setback requirements; and
The decision maker of the Site and Architectural review of the addition or
enlargement finds that the addition or enlargement will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or general welfare of persons residing in the
neighborhood
San Tomas Neighborhood Plan
Land Use Policies B. Setbacks
Add: Corner Lots.
A minimum street side yard setback of 12feet shall be provided on corner lots.
Attachments:
1. Recommended Finding
2. Recommended Amendments
3. Existing Ordinances
A. Chapter 21.55(Residential Setbacks and Open Space)
B. Chapter 21.64(Nonconforming Buildings)
C. San Tomas Neighborhood Land Use Policies -Setbacks
4. Initial Study
Submitted by:
Approved by:.__
Tim J. ~ A~'ociate Planner
Darryl M.
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. TA 96-01
SITE ADDRESS: City Wide
APPLICANT: City Initiated
P.C. MEETING: July 23, 1996
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to file TA 96-01:
Attachment #1
This proposed text amendment is consistent with the General Plan and the purposes of
providing adequate residential setbacks on comers.
The proposed amendment will require desirable building setbacks on comer lots to
ensure adequate light, air and recreational areas.
The proposed text amendment will ensure adequate sight visibility at comers to improve
traffic safety.
The proposed text amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment.
The proposed text amendment will not have a significant effect on plant and animal life
or natural resources.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission concludes that:
1. The proposed text amendment will require a more desirable setback for residential
buildings on comer lots.
The increased side yard setback will aid in the harmonious development of the
community.
The increased setback will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the city
The proposed setback permits a reasonable building area for corner residential lots.
Attachment # 2
RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS OF FILE NO.TA 96-01
New language shown in italics.
Add: Chapter 21.55 Residential Setbacks and Open Space
21.55.030 Side yard setback. Unless otherwise provided in this title, a minimum side yard of
the greater of five feet, or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the property line,
shall be maintained on all residentially zoned lots, except that corner lots shall maintain a
minimum street side yard setback of 12 feet from the building wall to the street property line.
Replace: Existing Section 21.64.060 Exceptions to Non-Conforming Buildings
21.64.060 Exceptions. A. A building or structure that fails to meet the setback
requirements for the district in which it is located may be added to or enlarged in
conformance with the following criteria:
1. The building or structure was legally constructed
2. The addition or enlargement is limited to the first floor;
3. The addition or enlargement does not encroach further into the required
setback area than the existing wall lines of the structure.
4. Any upper story additions comply with the current setback requirements; and
The decision maker of the Site and Architectural review of the addition or
enlargement finds that the addition or enlargement will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or general welfare of persons residing in the
neighborhood
San Tomas Neighborhood Plan - Land Use Policies - Section B: Setbacks
Add: Corner Lots.
A minimum street side yard setback of 12feet shall be provided on corner lots.
Sections:
Chapter 21.55
RESIDENTIAL SETBACKS AND OPEN SPACE
Attachment 3(A)
21.55.010
21.55.020
21.55.030
21.55.040
21.55.05O
21.55.060
21.55.070
Purpose.
Front yard setback.
Side yard setback.
Rear yard setback.
Buildings on the same lot.
Single and two-family dwellings - Open space requirements.
Multiple-family dwelling - Open space requirements.
21.55.010 Purpose. This chapter is intended to provide for yard setbacks
between buildings and property lines, buildings on the same site, and other
open space areas so as to provide adequate light, air, and recreational areas on
residential properties. (Ord. 1617 S1 (part), 1986).
21.55.020 Front yard setback. Unless otherwise provided in this title, a
minimum front yard of the greater of fifteen feet, or one-half the height of
the building wall adjacent to the property line, shall be maintained on all
residentially zoned lots, except that the entrance to a garage or carport shall be
no closer than twenty-five feet to any public right-of-way. (Ord. 1617 S1 (part),
1986).
21.55.030 Side yard setback. Unless otherwise provided in this title, a
minimum side yard of the greater of five feet, or one-half the height of the
building wall adjacent to the property line, shall be maintained on all
residentially zoned lots. (Ord. 1617 S1 (part), 1986).
21.55.040 Rear yard setback. Unless otherwise provided in this title, a
minimum rear yard of the greater of five feet, or one-half the height of the
building wall adjacent to the property line, shall be maintained on all
residentially zoned lots. (Ord. 1617 S1 (part), 1986).
21.55.050. Buildings of the same lot. Unless otherwise approved by the
planning commission or city council, two or more buildings on a
residentially zoned lot shall be no closer to each other than a distance equal to
the height of the taller of the two buildings, and, if the buildings are longer
than fifty feet and parallel or nearly parallel, they shall be no closer than a
distance equal to the combined heights of the two buildings. If a building is
constructed with two or more parallel or nearly parallel wings, the wings
shall be no closer than a distance equal to the combined heights of the two
wings. These regulations do not apply to detached garages appurtenant to the
main building for townhomes or condominiums. (Ord. 1617 S1 (part), 1986).
City of Campbell Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 21.55 -- Residential Setbacks and Open Space
Page 2
21.55.060 Single and two-family dwellings - Open space requirements.
For single or two-family dwellings, an area of not less than seven hundred
fifty square feet per dwelling unit shall be provided for recreational purposes.
Such area shall be in addition to the required front yard setback between the
building and the street property line. The recreational area may be occupied
by facilities such as a swimming pool, playground equipment, and a patio,
porch, or deck provided it is open on at least two sides and not covered by a
roof or canopy. (Ord. 1617 S1 (part), 1986).
21.55.070 Multiple-family dwelling -- Open space requirements. For
multiple-family dwellings (other than townhomes or condominiums) an
area of not less than two hundred twenty-five square feet per dwelling unit
shall be provided for recreational purposes. Such area shall be in addition to
the required front yard setback between the building and any street property
line. It shall be specifically designed for recreational use, whether active or
passive, and shall not be occupied by driveways, parking spaces, or walkways
between buildings.
A recreation area may be provided for each dwelling unit, or all the
required space may be combined in one area. A roof-top recreation space may
be counted as a part of the required space provided it is at least two hundred
twenty-five square feet in area. The area may be occupied by recreational
facilities such as a swimming pool, playground equipment, patios, porches or
decks provided that they are open on at least two sides and not covered by a
roof or canopy. When the recreation area is five thousand square feet or
more in size, a recreation building may be built on not more than twenty-five
percent of the area. (Ord. 1617 S1 (part), 1986).
Rev. 8/92
Attachment 3(B)
Chapter 21.64
NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS
Sections:
21.64.010
21.64.020
21.64.030
Purpose.
Continuation.
Maintenance--Repairs--Alterations.
21.64. 040 _Ad~tio.n~.--Enlargements--Moving.
21 64 050
' - ~estorat~on of damaged buildings.
21.64. 060 Exceptions.
t~ .21.64. 010 PurDos-. This Cha-ter :- -' .....
ne number and ext--~ L~ ....... *'. ~? ~n=enaeu to limit
hibiting their ~-~-~-~--~-~unc-°nm° -z~g s~r~.ctures by pro-
Drohibitin, th-~-~-~-~_~_u~_e~'. alte..re~, .or enlarged; and, by
=, --~ ~unuonzorma~g structures .......
altered to conform ~ - -- . are to be. eliminated or
~,~r.the_?~__strzct regulatxons .in which
they are located. ( ~. 1517 §1(Dart), 1986).
as ot~te~ance~-Re~airs--Alterat:o-s. Except
..... D vzded zn this c.haDter, a nonconforming
~uro. 1617 §l(Dart)' 1986). --e.
54. 040--21. 64 . 060
21.64.040 Additions--Enlargements--Moving. A. A
nonconforming building or structure shall Rot be added to
or enlarged in any manner unless such building or struc-
ture, including such additions and enlargements, is made to
conform to all regulations of the district in which it is
located.
B. A building or structure which does not comply with
the height or area regulations shall not be added to or en-
larged in any manner unless such addition or enlargement
conforms to all the regulations of the district in which it
is located.
C. A building or structure lacking sufficient automo-
bile parking space in connection therewith may be altered
or enlarged provided the required additional automobile
parking space is supplied.
D. No nonconforming building or structure shall be
moved in whole or in part to any other location on the lot
unless every portion of such building or structure is made
to conform to all regulations of the district in which it
is located. (Ord. 1617 §l(part), 1986).
21.64.050 Restoration of damaged buildings. A non-
conforming building or structure which is damaged or par-
tially destroyed by fire, flood, wind, earthquake, or other
calamity or act of God or the public enemy to the extent
that the cost of restoration does not exceed seventy-five
percent of the cost of construction of a comparable new
building (as determined by the building official) may be
restored or reconstructed provided that such restoration is
started within a period of one year and restoration com-
pleted one year thereafter.
In the event such damage or destruction exceeds
seventy-five percent of the cost of construction of a com-
parable new building (as determined by the building offi-
cial) no repairs or reconstruction shall be made unless
every portion of such building or structure is made to
conform to all regulations in the district in which it is
located.
In accordance with the intent of Section 21.03.010(c)
of this code, and notwithstanding any provisions to the
contrary, a nonconforming building which equals or exceeds
seventy-five feet in height shall be allowed to be recon-
structed or restored if it becomes damaged or destroyed, in
whole or in part, as the result of fire, flood, wind,
earthquake, act of God or public enemy. (Ord. 1645 §2,
1987; Ord. 1617 §l(part), 1986).
21.64.060 Exceptions. A. Provided that where a
building or structure is nonconforming solely because it
fails to meet the setback requirements for the district in
432-25 (Campbell 6/94)
which it is located, it may be added to or enlarged, upon
issuance of a conditional use permit as prescribed in Chap-
ter 21.72, Conditional Uses. Such addition must meet all
other standards of the district in which it is located.
B. Additions to legally existing structures in the
San Tomas area may be added to or enlarged as allowed under
policy G of the San Tomas neighborhood plan. Policy G is
incorporated herein by reference. The map outlining the
boundaries of the San Tomas area is maintained at the com-
munity development department. In the case of conflict
between the San Tomas neighborhood Dian policy.G and re-
quirements contained in this chapter, policy G of the San
Tomas neighborhood plan shall prevail. (Ord. 1884 §l(Exh.
A(II)), 1993: Ord. 1617 §l(part), 1986).
Attachment 3 (C)
LAND USE ISSUES
Goal Statement
These polities are intended to preserve the unique qualities of the San Tomas Area.
New development and additions should respect and enhance the best aspects of the
area. The San Tomas Area should remain a primarily low-density single family
residential area.
Objectives
Insure that the size of homes are in proportion to lot size.
New developments and additions to exiting homes should be integrated with
homes in the surrounding area.
Ensure that projects in planned developments zones are compatible with the
surrounding area.
Use landscaping to enhance the rural characteristics of the area.
Establish criteria to determine larger than minimum lot size.
Land Use Policies
Ao
Be
Relation&hip to Municipal Code
Development standards stated in Title 21 of the Campbell Munidpal
Code that are not spedfied in this section shall remain applicable. In the
case of conflict between the San Tomas Neighborhood Plan and Title 21
of the Campbell Municipal Code, the standards contained herein shall
prevail.
o
All projects submitted and deemed complete prior to the date that the San
Tomas Neighborhood Plan becomes effective shall be exempt from the
standards contained within this docmnent.
Setbacks
Front Yard Setbacks
The minimum front yard setback shall be as shown on page 5, except that
the entrance to a garage or carport shall be no doser than 25' to any public
right-of-way.
Page -4-
Zoning District
R-l-6
R-l-8
R-l-9
R-l-10
R-l-16
Setback
20'
20'
20'
25'
25'
2. Side Yard Setbacks
Zoning District
R-l-6
Setback
The greater of five feet, or one-half the height
of the building wall adjacent to the property
line.
R-1-8,9,10,16
.J
be
At least one side yard shall be the
greater of 10' or sixty percent of the
height of the building wall adjacent to
the property line.
The other side yard shall be the greater
of eight feet or sixty percent of the
height of the building wall adjacent to
the property line.
The side yard setbacks for legally cre-
ated lots with a lot width less than 60'
shall be the greater of five feet or one-
half the height of the building wall
adjacent to the property line.
Page -5-
3. Rear Yard Setbacks
Zoning District
R-l-6
R-l-8
R-l-9
R-I-10
R-l-16
Setback
20'
10' where the useable rear yard area =
20 x Lot width. (For the purposes of
this section, the useable rear yard area
shall be defined as that area bounded
by the rear building lines extended to
the side lot lines and rear property
line.
C
Building Coverage/Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
The maximum building coverage and FAR for a residential building with all its
accessory buildings induding private garages and carports shall be as shown
Page -6-:.
Attachment 4
Initial Study and Checkl;st
TitI~ of Proposal:
Agency Requiring Checklist:
Agency Address:
City/Sate/Zip:
Agency Contact:
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find u~at the proposed project could aot have a significant effect on the environment, and
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
b) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, lhere will not be a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures dcscn'be, d on an nttnehed sheet have be, eft added
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared []
c) I t'md the proposed project nury have a significant effect on the environment, and
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ...... [']
Signature ~ ~/
Print Name
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
PROJECT LOCATION:
eROJECT ADDRESS: lii:]T"(
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
(CEQA requires that an explanation of all "yes" and "m~yl~" an.rivers be provided along with thiz checldi~t, including a
discussion of ways to mitigate the ~ignificant effects identified. You may attach separate sheets with the expla~nffon$ on
them.)
Yet Maybe No
I. EARTH. Will the proposal result in:
a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic subsmactures? ['3 [] ~
b) Disruptions, displacements, compacgon or ovcrcowaiag of the soil? [-! n
c) Change in topography or ground surface r~lief features? [-] n [~
d) The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical
features? ["'1 [] [~
e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? n !-i [~
O changes in deposition or erosion of beachsands, or changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion whichmay modify the channel ora river or stream or the
bed of the ocean cr any bay, inlet or lake? [] r-I [~
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as earthquakes,
landslides, mudstides, ground failure, or similar hazards? [] [] [~
II. AIR. Will the proposal result in:
a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration ofambiem air quality? [] I"l
b) The creation of objectionable odors? [-] [-[
C) Alu:ration of air movement, moisture, or t~mperam~ or any change in
climate, either locally or regionally?
Ill. WATER. Will the proposal r~ult in:
a) Changes in currents, or the cour~ of dir~tion of warm- movements,
in either marine or freshwaters?
o o
[] o
c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? [] I-i ~//
d) Changes in the amount of surfnce ~ in any water' body? [~] []
e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, /
including, but not limited to, tmperat~, &~emlved oxygen er tmbidity? [='] l"]
0 Alteration of the dim:tion a. me of flow of ground warm? f=i
g) Change in ~he qusnfity of ground warm, ehhcr
withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavafion~ i--I I='!
h) Substantial mtuction in the amount of water od~'wise available f~r public
i)orExposure°fpe°plcorlX°pertytowa~r~!~t~ hazards such as floodingtidal waves? f-~ [] [~//
IV. PLANT lIFE. Will the proposal re~lt in:
a) Change in the diversity of species, or number or any species of plants
/
(including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? [-I f-] [~
b) Recluction of the numbers of any unique, rar~, or endmgered species of plants? f-i [] [~
c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrior m the normal /
replenisiunent of existing species? f'=i I-]
d) Reduction in ac-r~ge of any agricultural crop? [-I f"l [~
V. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in ~he diversity of species, or numbers of any species ofanimals
(birds; land animals, including reptiles; fzsh and shellfish, benthic organisms
or
b) Reduction of u~e numbers of any unique, rare. ~ endangered species
c) Introduction of new species of animals into an area, er result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of anitnals?
d) Deterioration to existing f'~h er wildlife habitat?
VI. NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
VII. LIGHT and GLARE. Will the proposal:
a) Produce new light or glare?
VHI. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area?
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in:
a) hu:rcase in the rate of use of any natural resom~s?
X. RISK OF UI~E"F. Will the proposalinvolve:
a) A risk of an explosion or the release of hn,-rdotts substances (including,
but not limited ~o: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event ofan
accident or upset conditions?
CliQA~ ~ORN~A ~0~
b) Possible interference with ~n
evacuation plaa? emergency rr. slxmse plan or an e. metse~
XI. POPULATION. Will the proposal:
a) Alter the location, distn'bution, density or growth rate of thc human populatim
of an area?
XIL HOUSING. Will the propoml:
a) Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
XIH. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal re..ndt in:
a) Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?
c) Substantial impact upon existing transportation syswans?
d) Alterations to present patterns ofcirctflation or movement ofpaople
and/or goods?
e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air mfffic?
0 Increase in traffic I~--nls to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians?
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon. or result in a need
for new or altered governmental servic~ in any of the following are. at:
a) Fire prom:tion?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks or other recr~tional facilities?
e) Maintenance of public facilities, including
0 Other governmental services?
XV. ENERGY. Will the proposal r~uit in:
a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
XVI. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS. Will the propo.ml result in a need
for new z'ysterns, or substantU~l alterations to the following utilities:
D
13
O
0
D
C)
O
O
[]
[]
[]
D
[]
a) Power or natural lpts? ~"
b) Communications systems'~ I-I i"'!
c) Water? ["=i l='! ..
d) Sewer or septic tanks? r-I 1-1
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste and disposal? ["] I-I
XVII. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in:
a)
b)
Creation of any heahh hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? I-'1
Exposure of people to potential health hazards? l-=l
XVIII. AESTHWrlcs.
a) ~e ~fi~
b) ~e ~n
~X. RECREA~ON.
a) Im~t ~n
XX. C~~L R~O~C~.
a) R~lt ~ ~M~ of~~~a~~
b) R~ult ~ ~v~
X~. MANDATORY
a) Potent~l ~ deg~de:
q~ity of ~e
~ ~ of a
b) Sho~-tem: ~
env~m~t ~
but c~ul~vely
~~ wh~
d) Subs~nfial adve~:
XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
(This section may be fdled out by using narrative, or by using a form. such as the example given in the C~QA Guide-
lines.)
XXIII. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS.
(An examination of whether the project would be consistent with e~_eting toning, plans, and other applicable land use
controls.)
(Note: This is only a suggested form p~suant to C~QA Guide. line~. Section 15063(d). Public agencies are free to devise
their own format for initial studies. Howoer, the DETERMINA ]'ION is an essential component of this form.)
CITY OF CAMPBELL
City Attorney's Office
IVED
PLANNING DEPT
To:
From:
Date:
MEMORANDUM
Tim Haley, Planner
Bill Seligmann
July 12, 1996
PLEASE RESPOND TO:
3'/2 N. Santa Cruz Ave.
Suite A
Los Gatos, CA 95030
,'et. 408.399.7766
FaX 408.399.7767
Re: Conner Lot Setback Provisions
Here are some general thoughts on rewording the code
amendments:
A. 21.55.030.
Change 12' to 12 feet.
B. 21.64.060(?)
Revise the format to read something as follows:
A. A building or structure that fails to meet the
setback requirements for the district in which it is located
may be added to or enlarged in conformance with the following
criteria:
1. The building or structure was lawfully
constructed;
(?) 2. The addition or enlargement is limited to the
first floor;
(?) 3. The addition or enlargement does not decrease
the existing setbacks;
4. Any upper story additions comply with the
current setback requirements; and
5. The decision maker on the Site and
Architectural review of the addition or enlargement finds
that the addition or enlargement will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or general welfare of
70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008.1423 - TEL 408.866.2129 · FAX 408.374.6889 ' TDD 408.866.2790
persons residing or working in the neighborhood.
B. (How does this conform with the San Tomas Policy,
and particularly Provision G?)
These are just some thoughts. I don't know if it is in
keeping with your intent. Let me know if you have any questions.
DEMPSTER. SELIGMANN & RAINERI
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ITEM NO. 2
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF JULY 9, 1996
TA 96-01
Public Hearing to consider the city-initiated application for approval of a
Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to require greater side yard
setbacks for comer residential lots.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
Recommend that the City Council Grant a Negative Declaration for this
amendment; and
Adopt a resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending that the City
Council approve a text amendment to sections 21.55.030 and 21.64.050 of the Zoning
Ordinance and the Land Use Policies of' the San Tomas Neighborhood Plan requiring
greater side yard setbacks on corner lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial study has been conducted for this project for the Commission's consideration. It
concludes this project will not have a significant effect on the environment, therefore, a
Negative Declaration was prepared.
BACKGROUND
The current Zoning Ordinance provides for required residential setbacks in Chapter 21.55
and in the San Tomas Neighborhood Plan. This chapter and neighborhood plan describe
setbacks for front, side and rear yards, however, it does not differentiate setback
requirements for comer lots. The application of the current minimum setbacks for comer lot
side yards results in a setback from a street property line at comers of 5 feet or 50 percent of
the height of the building wall along that property line in most residential zoning districts and
a minimum of 8 feet or 60 percent of the wall height within the San Tomas Neighborhood.
DISCUSSION
This setback standard is considered inadequate from both a safety standpoint for traffic
visibility and an aesthetic standpoint in terms of desired open spaces in the community. Most
communities require side yard setbacks of 9 to 15 feet on comer lots between buildings and
the street property line.
Planning Commission Staff Report - July 9, 1996
TA 96-01 - Comer Lot Residential Setbacks
Page 2
The Table # 1 summarizes the comer lot setbacks for various communities in the Santa
Clara Valley:
Table #1 -- Comer Lot Residential Setbacks
Cupertino 12'
Los Gatos 15' to 20'
Mountain View* 15'
Sunnyvale 9'
Santa Clara 15'
Saratoga** 15' to 25'
Campbell*** 5' to 8'
* Mountain View-Standard for corner lots 40' to 65' wide.
** Saratoga- Comer lots created after 1992
*** Campbell- 8' standard for lots with zoning of R-l-8 through R-l-16
The above table illustrates that Campbell's current comer yard setback is the least restrictive
of the surveyed cities.
Fencing Ordinance Comparison: The fence ordinance provisions are provided in section
21.59.090 of the Zoning Ordinance. Generally, these provisions allow 6'
fences up to and along street side yard property lines for comer lots which share common
rear property lines and require a 15' setback for comer lots which share a rear yard property
line with an adjacent side yard property line. The required setback for fences is based upon
objectives to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety and to create desirable open spaces for
street yard frontages of buildings.
The current side yard setback for residential buildings of 5' or one half the height of the
building wall in most residential districts and the setback of 8' or 60 percent of the wall
height in the San Tomas Neighborhood is less restrictive than the required fencing standard.
As such, the current setback does not achieve the intent to provide adequate light, air and
recreational areas as provided in the chapter on residential setbacks and open space.
Planning Commission StaffReport - July 9, 1996
TA 96-01 - Comer Lot Residential Setbacks
Page 3
Commercial/Industrial Setbacks: The Zoning Ordinance establishes setbacks for
commercial and industrial uses under the provisions of the site and architectural review
process and the Planning Commission's approval. Consequently, these setbacks are
established by the Planning Commission's specific approval of a project. The Planning
Commission decision is based upon safety concerns as well as the appropriate setback for
the scale of size of the industrial or commercial building. The Professional Office zone
requires a minimum 15 ' street yard setback.
Non Conforming Buildings: Whenever new development standards are adopted a potential
exists to create structures which were legally constructed as non conforming buildings due
to the change in the development standards. Section 21.64.060 "Exceptions" of the zoning
ordinance allows additions to such buildings in a conforming manner, subject to approval of
a Conditional Use Permit
Additionally, properties located in the San Tomas Neighborhood are permitted to extend
along existing building lines on the first floor only. Staff is recommending that a similar
policy to that adopted for the San Tomas Neighborhood be incorporated into this section for
structures that are rendered non conforming due to the insufficient setbacks. This
amendment will allow similar treatment to all structures in the community which are
rendered non conforming due to changes in setback requirements.
Additionally, staff is recommending that property owners be allowed to enlarge a structure
in a conforming manner without approval of a conditional use permit. This process would be
similar to the approval process established in the San Tomas Area.
Degree of Non Conforming Structures: The current development standards for comer lots
were adopted in early 1983. The majority of residences which have been constructed on
comer lots since that time have maintained a 15 ' setback from both street frontages.
Consequently, the number of structures which would be rendered non conforming due to a
more restrictive side yard setback is considered small.
Development Intensity: Residential structures are limited in size by the adopted development
standards which restrict the percentage of lot coverage (building footprint) and regulations
and the floor area ratio (FAR). The proposed modification in the required comer lot street
side yard setback will reduce the setback envelope of the building thus limiting the building
placement, however, the additional setback will not impact the size of the residential
structure on standard residential lots.
Planning Commission Staff Report - July 9, 1996
TA 96-01 - Corner Lot Residential Setbacks
Page 4
The building envelope on a standard R-l-6 single family lot of 6000 square foot lot is
currently 4000 square feet. This envelope is reduced to 3440 square feet with a 12' setback
and 3400 square feet with a 15 setback. Although the resulting building envelope is smaller,
a maximum building footprint of 40 percent may still be achieved as provided in the Zoning
Ordinance for Residential Districts.
Recommended Amendments: New language shown in italics
Add:
21.55.030 Side yard setback. Unless otherwise provided in this title, a minimum side yard of
the greater of five feet, or one-half the height of the building wall adjacent to the property
line, shall be maintained on all residentially zoned lots, except that corner lots shall maintain
a minimum street side yard setback of 12 'from the building wall to the streetproperty line.
Replace: Existing section 21.64.050 with
21.64.050 Exceptions. A. Provided that where a building or structure is non-conforming
solely because it fails to meet the setback requirements for the district in which it is located,
it may be added to or enlarged along the first floor of existing building lines even when the
existing first floor setback does not meet the setback requirement.
Extensions only apply to first floor additions that are not detrimental to public
heath, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood
2. The addition or extension maintains existing setbacks but shall not
further encroach into the required setback area.
3. All upper story additions must comply with the setback standards.
San Tomas Neighborhood Plan
Land Use Policies B. Setbacks
Add: Corner Lots.
A minimum street side yard setback of 12' shall be provided on corner lots.
Planning Commission StaffReport -July 9, 1996
TA 96-01 - Corner Lot Residential Setbacks
Page 5
Attachments:
1. Recommended Finding
2. Recommended Amendments
3. A. Existing Ordinances Chapter 21.55(Residential Setbacks and Open Space)
B. Section 21.64(Non-conforming Buildings)
C. San Tomas Neighborhood Land Use Policies -Setbacks
4. Initial Study
Submitted by: ~'~, ~
Tim J. Hale~, As~ciate Planner
Approved by: a~l~nes,~
D r
Planner
Proof of Publi tion
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
?,34 E. Campbell Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 374-9700
Fax: (408) 374-0813
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Santa Clara
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the
County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and
not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter. I am
the principal Clerk of the printer of the Campbell Express/
Cambrian News, a newspaper of general circulation, printed
and published each Wednesday in the City of Campbell,
California, County of Santa Clara, and which newspaper has
been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Su-
perior Court of the County of Santa Clara, State of Califor-
nia, under the date of February 8, 1956. Case number 96461
that the notice of which is annexed is a printed copy (set in
type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each
regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof in the following dates, to-wit:
all in the year 19 h ~
I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the forego-
ing is tree and correct.
Dated at San Jose, California, this '. ,
day of <" ,19.
/
L.
/
Signature
This spacr '- for the County Clerk's filing stamp.
Proof of Publication of
(.
* O.~C H A~LO ·
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARINa AND PUBU¢ REVIEW PERIOD
Notice le hereby given that the Planning Commission o! the Glty of
Campbell, California, will hold a Public He,ring to consider the City-
Initiated application for approval of a Text Amendment to Chapter
21.55 {Flasidentlel Setbeckl and Open Space} and Ch~oter 21.66
(Non~,onforming Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance and the land Use
Policies B and E of the Sin Tonm8 Ara~ Neighborhood Plan to re-
quire great sicleyird setbick~ for corner residential lots and to allow
rssidentlel additions to non-conforming stnJcturas. Planning Depart.
ment File No. TA 9601.
Notice 18 further ghnm that · Draft Negative Declaration has been
prepared for this project. This certiflss that no significant en-
vironmental Impacts are anticipated with the project.
Coplee of the Draft' Negative Declaration, Initial Study and other
documentation ara available for review at the Department of Plan-
ning located at 70 N. First Street, Campbell, California. The Public
Review period for this Negative Declaration ends on July 5, 1996. All
written comments should be received by the Campbell Planning
Department by this date.
'The Public Hearing on the Text Amendment and the draft Negative
Declaration will be held during the Planning Commission meeting on
Tuesday, July g, 1996. The meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m. at the City
Hall Council Chambers, located at 70 N. First Street, Campbell,
California.
Int~'reeted persons may appear and be heard at this meeting. Please
be advised that if you challenge the City's decision on this matter in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or some-
one else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in
written correspondence delivered to the Campbell Planning Commis-
sion, at or prior to the Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL
STEVEN T. PIASECKI, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
If you have any questions regarding this application, please call.
Tim Haley In the Pianning Department, (4(~ 866-2140. Please
; refer to File No. TA 96-01 when calling about this notice.
Pub: Wednesday, May 19, 1996
June 13,1996
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department- Current Planning~' , -~ i'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC REVI~W.I?ERIO~ ~
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell, California, will
hold a Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated-application for approval of a Text
Amendment to Chapter 21.55 (Residential Setbacks and Open Space) and Chapter 21.66 (Non-
Conforming Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance and the Land Use Policies B and E of the San
Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan to require great sideyard setbacks for comer residential lots and
to allow residential additions to non-conforming structures. Planning Depa, u.ent File No. TA
96-01.
Notice is further given that a Draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. This
certifies that no significant environmental impacts are anticipated with the project.
Copies of the Draft Negative Declaration, Initial Study and other documentation are available for
review at the Depa, uaent of Planning located at 70 N. First Street, Campbell, Califomia~ The
Public Review period for this Negative Declaration ends on July 5, 1996. All written comments
should be received by the Campbell Planning Department by this date.
The Public Hearing on the Text Amendment and the Draft Negative Declaration will be held
during the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, July 9, 1996. The meeting will begin at
7:30 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, located at 70 N. First Street, Campbell, California.
Interested persons may appear and be heard at this meeting. Please be advised that if you
challenge the City's decision on this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this notice or in written
correspondence delivered to the Campbell Planning Commission, at or prior to the Public
Hearing.
PLANrq. ING COMIvlISSION
crrY OF CAMPBRIJ.
STEVEN T. PIASECKI, AICP
COMMUNITY DEVRI.OPMENT DIRECTOR
4UN .! 7 1996 JUL
POSTED ON , _ THROUGH-
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK
STEPH£N V. C0¥£. CQUNTY C~RI~
IY , ~fS-~'~ __DEPUT~
17
1996
If you have any questions regarding this application, please call Tim Haley in the
Planning Department, (408) 866-2140. Please refer to File No. TA 96-01 when
calling about this notice.
70 North First Street - Campbell, California 95008.1423 · TEl_ 408.866.2140 . FAX 408.379.2572 · TI)D 408.866.2790
Planning Commission Minutes of June 11, 1996
Page 12
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy agreed with Commissioner Lowe that the
requirement for trees is excessive.
Commissioner Alne stated that he is satisfied that the applicant and his neighbor are
willing to work together to achieve a compromise satisfactory to both of them. He
complimented the participants on their willingness to work together.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Atne seconded by Commi.~sioner
Kearns, the Planning Commission moved to adopt Resolution No.
3031 approving a Use Pe,udt and Variance to allow a secondary
living unit on property located at 1228 Harriet Avenue and striking
Condition of Approval C requiring the planting of four Redwood
trees, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Alne, Jones, Keams, Lindstrom, Lowe, Meyer-Kennedy
None
Gibbons
None
The decision of the Planning Commission is final, unless appealed in writing to the
City Clerk within 10 days.
Chairman Lindstrom read Agenda Item No. 5 into the record.
5. TA 95-04 Public Hearing to consider the City-initiated application for a
Text Amendment CIA 95-04) to the Zoning Ordinance to require
greater sideyard setbacks for comer residential lots.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, presented the staff report as
follows:
· Staff recommends that this item be removed from the agenda to readvertise and
expand the proposed amendments and bring the item back at a later date.
Commissioner Alne asked whether the streetlights issue could be revisited since the
STANP would be impacted by this Text Amendment.
Chairman Lindstron expressed that this seemed appropriate.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the STANP already has greater side yard provisions.
Staff had not considered amending the STANP with this Text Amendment. He
added that if the City Council takes action on tonight's Planning Commission Minute
Action, the STANP will also be considered.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 11, 1996 Page 13
Chairman Lindstrom opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5.
There were no parties in attendance wishing to discuss Agenda Item No. 5
Chairman Lindstrom closed Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by
Commissioner Meyer-Kennedy, the Planning Commission
moved to continue consideration of the Text Amendment (TA
95-04) to the Zoning Ordinance to a date uncertain. (6-0-1;
Commissioner Gibbons was absent)
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
The written report of Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director was
accepted as presented with the following comments:
· Brought the Commission's attention to two articles within his report. One article
is about the City of Santa Clara and its need for a downtown. The second article
is concerning the transportation measure being considered for the November
ballot.
ADTOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. to the next Planning
Commission meeting of June 25, 1996, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City
Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California.
S UBM ITT ED BY: v('~~
Corinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
ITEM NO. 5
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF June 11,1996
TA 95-01
City--initiated
Public Hearing to consider the city-initiated application
for approval of a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
require greater sideyard setbacks for corner residential lots.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
Remove the consideration of the text amendment from the agenda so that
staff may prepare a revised public hearing notice for considering additions
to non-conforming structures.
BACKGROUND
The City Council at its meeting of April 16, 1996 authorized staff to prepare an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance requiring a greater setback for the street
side yard of corner lots.
The current standards for residential setbacks are provided in Chapter 21.55 and
in the San Tomas Neighborhood Plan. This chapter and neighborhood plan
describe setbacks for front, side and rear yards, however, they do not differentiate
setback requirements for corner lots. The application of the current minimum
setbacks for side yards results in a setback from a street property line at corners of
5 feet or 50 percent of the height of the building wall along that property line in
most residential zoning districts and a minimum of 8 feet or 60 percent of the
wall height within the San Tomas Neighborhood.
DISCUSSION
During our analysis of the implications of a text amendment for new corner
sideyard setbacks, staff identified a need to review the procedures for allowing
additions to non-conforming residences with substandard setbacks. This review
was not considered in the public hearing notice for this item, consequently, this
matter must be readvertised with a revised description prior to the public
hearing.
Submitted by: Tim J.~ate Planner
Approved by:~
10. Initiate Proceedings - Lighting and Landscaping District FY 1996/97 (Resolution/Roll
Call Vote)
Resolution 8965 approves a resolution initiating proceedings, describing improvements,
and directing staff to prepare the Engineer's Report for the Campbell Lighting and
Landscaping Assessment District (l.l.&-l) for Fiscal Year 1996-97.
11. 1996-97 Campbell Storm Water Management Program
This action approves the submittal of the proposed Campbell Storm Water Management
Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 1996-97 to West Valley Sanitation District.
12. Incorporate the Housing and Commnnlty Development Rehabilitation Loan
Committee Policies and Procedures into Council Policy Manual
This action approves the Housing & Community Development Rehabilitation Loan
Committee Policies and Procedures for incorporation into the Council Policy Manual.
13. Position on Legislation
This action supports SB 2400 (Miller) and AB 2828 (Sweeney).
14. Annual Crime and Traffic Report
This action is to note and file the Annual Crime and Traffic Report.
15. Authorization to Staff to Initiate a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
Requiring Greater Sideyard Setbacks for Comer Residential Lots
This action authorizes staff to initiate a Text Amendment to require greater sideyard
setbacks on corner residential lots.
M/S: Burr/Conant - to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion adopted by the following
roll call vote:
AYES : Councilmembers: Burr, Cunant, Watson, Furtado, Dougherty
NOES : Councilmembers: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Furtado - Itema 3, 4 and 5
ORAL REQUESTS
Debbie Arambula, 1249 Virginia Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the Council to announce
her selection as Mrs. Campbell International to represent the City of Campbell in the Mrs.
California Pageant scheduled in June, 1996.
Minutes of 4/16/96 City Cotmcfl Meeting
Oty
Council
Report
ITEM NO.:
CATEGORY:
MEETING DATE:
Consent
April 16, 1996
TITLE
Authorization for staff to initiate a text amendment to the zoning ordinance to
require greater sideyard setbacks for comer residential lots.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council take the following action:
Authorize staff to initiate a study and prepare a text amendment to require
greater sideyard setbacks on corner residential lots.
BACKGROUND
The current Zoning Ordinance provides for required residential setbacks in Chapter
21.55 and in the San Tomas Neighborhood Plan. This chapter and neighborhood
plan determines required setbacks for front, side and rear yards, however, it does
not differentiate setback requirements for corner lots. The current minimum
sideyard setback from the street property line for corner lots is 5 feet or 50 percent of
the height of the building wall along that property line in all residential zoning
districts except the San Tomas Neighborhood. The minimum required sideyard
setback in the San Tomas Neighborhood is 8 feet or 60 percent of the wall height.
ANALYSIS
The current setback standards are considered inadequate from both a traffic visibility
standpoint and an aesthetic standpoint in terms of desired open spaces in the
community. Most communities require sideyard setbacks of 12 to 15 feet on corner
lots.
If authorized, staff would conduct a survey of other community's setbacks within
Santa Clara County to provide a comparative study for the Planning Commission's
and City Council's consideration before recommending a specific sideyard setback for
corner lots. This analysis will additionally include a review of the following:
Consistency with setbacks required for fencing
Consistency with setback requirements of other zoning district such as
commercial and industrial districts.
Provision of allowances for additions along existing building lines and
Identification of the degree of building setback non conformity due the
adoption of new setbacks.
It is anticipated that staff will return to the City Council with a proposed text
amendment in the later part of June 1996.
Authorization of Comer Setback Amendments-City Council Report- Page 2
HSCAL IMPA(~T$
Staff time to conduct study and prepare recommendation.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not grant authorization for the study
2. Authorize the study and provide further direction regarding the review of other
residential setbacks.
Attachments:
1. Chapter 21.55 Residential Setbacks and Open Space
2. San Tomas Neighborhood Plan, Setbacks
PREPARED BY: Tim ~aley~As/soci~te Planner
-- Steve Piasecki, 'Co~n~mhnit-y Development Director
APPROVED BY:
Mark J. Ochenduszko, City Manager
ITEM NO. 1
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF MARCH 11,1996
TA 95-01
City--initiated
Public Hearing to consider the city-initiated application
for approval of a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
require greater sideyard setbacks for corner residential lots.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
Recommend that the City Council Grant a Negative Declaration for this
amendment; and
o
Adopt a resolution, incorporating the attached findings, recommending
that the City Council approve a text amendment to sections 21.55.030 and
21.64.050 of the Zoning Ordinance requiring greater side yard setbacks on
corner lots.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial study for the Commission's consideration has been conducted for this
project and concludes this project will not have a significant effect on the
environment, therefore, a Negative Declaration was prepared.
BACKGROUND
The current Zoning Ordinance provides for required residential setbacks in
Chapter 21.55 and in the San Tomas Neighborhood Plan. This chapter and
neighborhood plan describe setbacks for front, side and rear yards, however, it
does not differentiate setback requirements for corner lots. The application of the
current minimum setbacks for sideyards results in a setback from a street
property line at corners of 5 feet or 50 percent of the height of the building wall
along that property line in most residential zoning districts and a minimum of 8
feet or 60 percent of the wall height within the San Tomas Neighborhood.
DISCUSSION
This setback standard is considered inadequate from both a safety standpoint for
traffic visibility and an aesthetic standpoint in terms of desired open spaces in the
community. Most communities require sideyard setbacks of 9 to 15 feet on corner
lots between buyildings and the street property line.
The Table # 1 summarizes the corner lot setbacks for various communities in the
Santa Clara Valley:
Table #1 - Corner Lot Residential Setbacks
Cupertino 12'
Los Gatos 15' to 20'
Mountain View* 15'
Sunnyvale 9'
Santa Clara 15'
Saratoga** 15' to 25'
San Jose
Campbell*** 5' to 8'
* Mountain View-Standard for corner lots 40' to 65' wide.
* * Saratoga- Corner lots created after 1992
*** Campbell- 8' standard for lots with zoning of R-l-8 through R-l-16
The above table illustrates that Campbell's current corner yard setback is the least
restrictive of the surveyed citiies.
Fencing Ordinance: The fence ordinance provisions are provided in section
21.59.090 of the Zoning Ordinance. Generally, these provisions allow 6' fences up
to and along street sideyard property lines for corner lots which share common
rear property lines and require a 15' setback for corner lots which share a rearyard
property line with an adjacent sideyard property line. The required setback for
fences is based upon objectives to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety and to
create desirable open spaces for street yard frontages of buildings.
The current side yard setback for residential buildings of 5' or one half the height
of the building wall in most residential districts and the setback of 8' or 60
percent of the wall height in the San Tomas Neighborhood is less restrictive than
the required fencing standard. As such, the current setback does not achieve the
intent to provide adequate light, air and recreational areas as provided in the
chapter on residential setbacks and open space.
Commercial/Industrial Setbacks: The Zoning Ordinance establishes setbacks for
commercial and industrial uses under the provisions of the site and architectural
review process and the Planning Commission's approval. Consequently, these
setbacks are established by the Planning Commssion's specific approval of a
project. The Planning Commission decision is based upon safety concerns as well
as the appropriate setback for the scale of size of the industrial or commercial
building.
Non Conforming Buildings: Whenever new development standards are adopted
a potential exist to create structures which were legally constructed as non
conforming buildings due to the change in the development standards. Section
21.64.060 "Exceptions "of the zoning ordinance allows additions to such buildings
in a conforming manner, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Additionally, properties located in the San Tomas Neighborhood are permitted
to extend along existing building lines. Staff is recommending that a similar
policy to that adopted for the San Tomas Neighborhood be incorporated into this
section for structures that are rendered non conforming due to the insufficient
setbacks on corner lots.
Additionally, staff is recommending that property owners be allowed to add to or
enlarge to a structure in a conforming manner without approval of a conditional
use permit.
Degree of Non Conforming Structures: The current development standards for
corner lots were adopted in early 1983. The majority of residences which have
been constructed on corner lots since that time have maintained a 15 ' setback
from both street frontages. Consequently, the number of structures which would
be rendered non conforming due to a more restrictive sideyard setback is
considered small.
Development Intensity: Residential structures are limited in size by the adopted
development standards which restrict the percentage of lot coverage (building
footprint) and regulations and the floor area ratio (FAR). The proposed
modification in the required corner lot street sideyard setback will restrict the
setback envelope of the building thus limiting the building placement, however,
the additional setback will not impact the size of the residential structure on
standard residential lots. The resulting building envelope still permits a
maximum building footprint of 40 percent as provided in the Zoning Ordinance
for Residential Districts.
Recommended Amendments: New language shown in italics
21.55.030 Side yard seback. Unless otherwise provided in this title, a minimum
side yard of the greater of five feet, or one-half the height of the building wall
adjacent to the property line, shall be maintained on all residentially zoned lots,
except that corner lots shall maintain a minimum street side yard setback of 12'
from the building wall to the street property line.
21.64.050 Exceptions. C. Additions to legally existing structures on corner lots may
be extended along the first floor of existing building lines even when the existing
first floor setback does not meet the setback requirement for corner street side
yard setbacks when