Loading...
Fence Exception - 2003MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Tim Haley ,s~ate Planner, Community Development Dept. J/ah~temsley ep~ty City Clerk Ma~21, 2003 Appeal - PC decision approving Fence Exception (PLN 2003-17) for property located at 920 Marilyn Drive At the regular meeting of May 20, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving the application of Ray and Nicole Razavi for a Fence Exception (PLN 2003-17) to allow a 45-inch high (50 inches with the decorative posts) front yard fence for property located at 920 Marilyn Drive. After hearing public testimony and Council deliberation, the City Council adopted Resolution 10185 denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission approval of a Fence Exception, incorporating findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval, for property located at 920 Marilyn Drive. The City Council further found that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3, of CEQA pertaining to the conversion of small structures. A certified copy of this Resolution is attached for your records together with a copy of the letter written to the Appellant in follow up to the City Council's action. Attachment: .0¥' C A,t~ CITY OF CAMPBELL City Clerk's Office May 21, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Andrianos 932 Marilyn Drive Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Andrianos: At the regular meeting of May 20, 2003, the City Council held a public hearing to consider your Appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving Ray and Nicole Razavi's application for a Fence Exception (PLN 2003-17) to allow a 45-inch high (50 inches with decorative posts) front yard fence on property located at 920 Marilyn Drive. After hearing public testimony, and following City Council deliberation, Resolution No. 10185 was adopted denying your Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission approval of a Fence Exception (PLN 2003-17), incorporating findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval. The City Council took further action finding that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3 of the California Enviromental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to the conversion of small structures. A certified copy of Resolution No. 10185 is attached for your records. Please do not hesitate to contact this office (866-2117) or Tim Haley, Associate Planner, should you have any questions in regard to the City Council's action. City Clerk Eric. cc. Ray and Nicole Razavi, 920 Marilyn Drive, Campbell, CA 95008 Tim Haley, Associate Planner, Community Development Department 70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008.1423 · TEL 408.866.2117 · F^X 408.374.6889 ' TDD 408.866.2790 RESOLUTION NO. ]_0]_85 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL DENYING AN APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A FENCE EXCEPTION (PLN2003-17) TO ALLOW A 45-INCH HIGH (50 INCHES WITH THE DECORATIVE POSTS) FRONT YARD FENCE, WHEREAS CODE LIMITS SUCH FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHTS TO 42-INCHES, ON PROPERTY OWNED BY RAY AND NICOLE RAZAVI LOCATED AT 920 MARILYN DRIVE IN AN R-l-6 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICATION OF RAY AND NICOLE RAZAVI. FILE NO. PLN2003-17. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council did find as follows with respect to application PLN2003-17 The proposed front yard fence exception consists of a solid wooden fence with a height of 45 inches and decorative post and caps of 50 inches above the existing grade of the subject property where a 42-inch fence is typically permitted. 2. The proposed fence height extension is not detrimental to the visual appearance of the subject fence with the height extension and other approved fences on the property. 3. The proposed fence height extension enhances the aesthetic appearance of the 42-inch fence by providing additional variation and wood details. 4. The proposed fence height extension does not impair pedestrian or vehicular visibility. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further finds and concludes that: 1. The requested fence exception does not impair pedestrian or vehicular safety. 2. The requested fence exception results in a desirable fence design with decorative posts rather more a simple board fence with a height of 42 inches. o The requested fence exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or will be not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council denies an appeal and upholds the Planning Commission approval granting grants a Fence Exception (PLN2003-17) to allow a 45-foot high (50 inches with the decorative posts) front yard fence on property owned by Ray and Nicole Razavi located at 920 Marilyn Drive, subject to the following conditions: City Council Resolution PLN2003-17- 920 Marilyn Drive Denying Appeal and Upholding Approval of Fence Exception Page 2 Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified. 1. Approved Project: A fence exception is granted for the property located at 920 Mafilyn Drive to allow 45-inch solid wood fence with 50-inch decorative posts, along the front and side yards of the subject property. Project approval shall substantially comply with the applicant's request dated February 27, 2003 and the exhibits and photographs. Expiration of Approval: This approval shall be in effect until such time as the fence requires substantial repair or replacement. At that time, this fence shall be reduced to a height allowable under City Code unless otherwise approved by the City. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of call vote: May ., 2003, by the following roll AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Watson, Kennedy, Dean, None None None APPROVED: Anne Bybee, City Clerk Burr, Furtado With regard to Item #7, David Dias, American Lung Association of Santa Clara-San Benito Counties, appeared before the City Council and expressed appreciation for the Council's support and adoption of ResQlution 10184. ORAL REQUESTS Meg Stein, 1203 Hazel Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and reported that the city-wide clean up event held on May 10 was very successful. bo Eileen Tanaka, Campbell Chamber of Commerce, appeared before the City Council and expressed appreciation to the City Council for its support of the "Boogie on the Bayou" Festival. Co A speaker representing Y2K, special events promoter, appeared before the City Council and spoke regarding action taken by the City Council at its May 6th Meeting revoking the live entertainment permit for Off The Hook Sports Bar & Grill. Mayor Furtado referred this matter to staff. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving Application of Ray and Nicole Razavi for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-17) to allow a 45-inch high front yard fence (50 inches with decorative posts) whereas the Municipal Code limits such front yard fence heights to 42-inches, on property located at 920 Marilyn Drive in an R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision Approving Application of Ray and Nicole Razavi for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-17) to allow a 45-inch high front yard fence (50 inches with decorative posts) whereas the Municipal Code limits such front yard fence heights to 42-inches, on property located at 920 Marilyn Drive in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District Community Development Director Fierro - Staff Report dated May 20, 2003. Mayor Furtado declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience wished to be heard. Resident, 1139 Audrey Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and questioned why the City does not enforce fence height restrictions as stipulated in the Municipal Code. Resident, 917 Marilyn Avenue, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the fence exception. Minutes of 5/20/03 City Council Meeting 3 Resident, 16345 Los Gatos Boulevard (former resident of Marilyn Drive), appeared before the City Council and spoke in support of the fence exception. Linda Andrianos, 932 Marilyn Drive, Campbell, appeared before the City Council, and spoke against the fence exception stating that the fence is out of character and incompatible with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Razavi, Owner, 920 Marilyn Drive, Campbell, appeared before the City Council to answer any questions. Meg Stein, San Tomas Area Neighborhood Association representative, appeared before the City Council and clarified the San Tomas Policy regarding fence exceptions. Thomas Andrianos, 932 Marilyn Drive, Campbell, appeared before the City Council and spoke against the fence exception. There being no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Furtado closed the public hearing. City Council discussion followed during which Councilmembers indicated their support for the fence exception. Councilmember Dean suggested an amendment to the wording of the condition of approval regarding expiration of approval. City Attorney Seligmann recommended the following change to Condition //2 - Expiration of Approval: This approval shall be in effect until such time as the fence requires substantial repair or replacement." M/S: Dean/Burr - that the City Council adopt Resolution 10185 incorporating Findings and Conditions of Approval, denying an Appeal and upholding the Planning Commission approval of a Fence Exception, (PLN2003-17) and find that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to the conversion of small structures, and approving amendment to Condition//2 as follows: "This approval shall be in effect until such time as the fence requires substantial repair or replacement." Motion adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Watson, Kennedy, Dean, Burr, Furtado NOES: Councilmembers: None UNFINISHED BUSINESS There were no agendized items. Minutes of 5/20/03 City Council Meeting 4 oty Council. Report rmM NO: CATEGORY: MEETING DATE: Public Hearing May 20, 2003 TITLE Appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving the application of RaY and Nicole Razavi for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-17) to allow a 45-inch high (50 inches with the decorative posts) front yard fence, whereas the Municipal Code limits such front yard fence heights to 42-inches at 920 Marilyn Drive in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District. CITY COUNCIL ACTION The City Council may take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, approving an appeal and denying the Planning Commission approval of a Fence Except. ion (PLN2003-17); or Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings and Conditions of Approval, denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission approval of a Fence Exception (PLN2003-17) and find that the project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303, Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to the conversion of small structures; or 3. Continue the item for additional information or refer the project back to the Planning Commission. BACKGROUND Planning Commission Meeting: At its meeting of April 8, 2003, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3486 approving a Fence Exception to allow a 45-inch high(50 inches with the decorative posts) front yard fence for a residence located at 920 Marilyn Drive. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the application due to consistency with the San Tomas Neighborhood Area Plan and the provisions of the fence ordinance. (see the Planning Commission Staff report Attachment No.3 ). City Council Report - May 20, 2003 Appeal of PLN2003-17 - 920 Marilyn Drive Page 2 At the meeting the neighbors, who are the appellants, spoke in opposition to the project. The main objections raised at the hearing dealt with the visual compatibility of the fence with the neighborhood. (see Attachment No. 5). Planning Commission: The Planning Commission in approving the project, found that the proposed fence does not deviate significantly from the height limitations of the Zoning Ordinance and generally complies with the development standards and design guidelines of the San Tomas Neighborhood Area Plan. The Planning Commission added a condition limiting the approval to 10 years. Appeal: On April 17, 2002, the City Clerk received a letter of appeal from Thomas and Linda Andrianos, appealing the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Fence Exception (PLN2003-17). The Andrianos are adjacent to 920 Marilyn Drive and share the front yard areas along Marilyn Drive. A copy of the applicant's appeal letter is attached (see Attachment No. 6). ALTERNATIVES The alternative actions the City Council may take are listed on page one under "City Council Action." FISCAL IMPACTS None. Attachments: 1. Draft City Council Resolution approving an appeal and overturning the Planning Commission approval of a Fence Exception (PLN2003-17). 2. Draft City Council Resolution denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission approval of a Site and Architectural Permit (PLN2003-17). 3. Planning Commission Staff Report of April 8, 2003. 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3486. 5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 8, 2003. 6. Appeal Letter submitted by Thomas and Linda Adrianos on April 17, 2003. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved by: Ti~o~~ner S~h~ Fierr , Community Development Director erna~d M. S~ny, City Manager 932 Madlyn Dr. Campbell, CA. 95008 Attachment #6 Rr~-~ 1 ~ APR 1 8 2003 Cl~ CL~K'S. OEFIC~. Apd117, 2003 RE: FILE NO. PLN 2003-17 For the attention of: Anne Bybee; City Clerk This letter confirms our intention to file an appeal to the City Council in regards to the fence exception request, which came before the Planning Commission on April 8, 2003. Respectfully submitted, Thomas Anddanos NOTICE OF EXEMPTION E1 078 ! To: Office of Planning & Research P.O. Box 3044 1400 Tenth Street, Room 222 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 From: City of Campbell 70 N. First Street Campbell, CA 95008 X County Clerk's Office Santa Clara County 70 W. Hedding Street, East Wing San Jose, CA 95110 (3 copies & cover sheet filled out by planner) Project Title: PLN2003-17 Project Location - Specific: 920 Marilyn Drive Project Location - City: Campbell Project Location - County: Santa Clara County Description of Project: Fencing exception for front yard fence height Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Campbell Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Ray & Nicole Razavi Exempt Status (check one) O Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); O Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a); © Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c); · Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Section 15303(e) Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pertaining to the construction of small structures O Statutory Exemptions. State code number: Reasons why project is exempt: Construction of small structure Lead Agency Contact Person: Tim Haley Signature: ~'n~.. ~l~ · Signed by Lead Agency C) Signed by Applicant Phone: (408) 866-2144 Date: ~q,/0/4' Title: Date Received for filing at OPR: 4/9/03 CITY o~ CAMPBELL Community Development Department CAMPBELL April 9, 2003 Ray and Nicole Razavi 920 Marilyn Drive Campbell, CA 95008 Re: PLN2003-17 - 920 Marilyn Drive - Fence Exception Dear Applicant: Please be advised that at its meeting of April 8, 2003, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3486 approving a Fence Exception on the above referenced property. This action is effective in ten calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk by 5 p.m. on Friday, April 18, 2003. California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6, governs the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2140. Sinc~z~'Z Tim J. Haley Associate Planner Cc: Lynn Penoyer, Public Works Frank Mills, Building Chris Veargason, County Fire 70 North First Street - Campbell, California 95008-1436 · TEl. 408.866.2 140 · FAX 408.871 .5140 · TDD 408.866.2790 RESOLUTION NO. 3486 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A FENCE EXCEPTION (PLN2003-17) TO ALLOW A 45-INCH HIGH (50 INCHES WITH THE DECORATIVE POSTS) FRONT YARD FENCE, WHEREAS CODE LIMITS SUCH FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHTS TO 42-INCHES, ON PROPERTY OWNED BY RAY AND NICOLE RAZAVI LOCATED AT 920 MARILYN DRIVE IN AN R-l-6 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICATION OF RAY AND NICOLE RAZAVI. FILE NO. PLN2003-17. After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows with respect to application PLN2003-17: 1. The proposed front yard fence exception consists of a solid wooden fence with a height of 45 inches and decorative post and caps of 50 inches above the existing grade of the subject property where a 42-inch fence is typically permitted. 2. The proposed fence height extension is not detrimental to the visual appearance of the subject fence with the height extension and other approved fences on the property. 3. The proposed fence height extension enhances the aesthetic appearance of the 42-inch fence by providing additional variation and wood details. 4. The proposed fence height extension does not impair pedestrian or vehicular visibility. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: 1. The requested fence exception does not impair pedestrian or vehicular safety. 2. The requested fence exception results in a desirable fence design with decorative posts rather more a simple board fence with a height of 42 inches. o The requested fence exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or will be not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission grants a Fence Exception (PLN2003-17) to allow a 45-foot high (50 inches with the decorative posts) front yard fence on property owned by Ray and Nicole Razavi located at 920 Marilyn Drive, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Res ~.tion No. 3486 PLN2003-17 - 920 Marilyn Drive - Fence Exception Page 2 Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified. Approved Proiect: A fence exception is granted for the property located at 920 Marilyn Drive to allow 45-inch solid wood fence with 50-inch decorative posts, along the front and side yards of the subject property. Project approval shall substantially comply with the applicant's request dated February 27, 2003 and the exhibits and photographs. Expiration of Approval: This approval shall be in effect for 10 years from the date of approval or until April 8, 2013. At that time, this fence shall be reduced to a height allowable under City Code unless otherwise approved by the City. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of April, 2003, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones and Rocha None None None APPROVED: Joseph Hemandez, Chair ATTEST: Sharon Fierro, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Attachment #5 Page 3 · Stated that all the proposed projects in the CIP are Categorically Exempt. · Informed that a lot of projects were moved to the unfunded list so that they would not be lost. · Reminded that the CIP document is prepared every year. · Added that the amount of money available to fund projects not eligible for special funding is estimated to be approximately $500.00. In contrast, last year the CIP monies available for non-special fund projects were anticipated to be 1.7 million. Commissioner Francois mentioned the former proposal for a traffic signal at Harriet and McCoy, which is currently unfunded. It had been decided that traffic calming measures could be implemented instead of this signal and asked that the Harriet/McCoy area be included in the median landscaping project of the CIP. Director Sharon Fierro advised that the purpose this evening is simply to review consistency with the General Plan and make a CEQA determination. Suggested that Commissioner Francois submit a letter with his request to Council, the body with the authority to make changes and/or additions to the CIP. Chair Hemandez opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Chair Hernandez opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 1. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3485 finding the 2003-2010 Capital Improvement Plan to be consistent with the City's General Plan and recommending that Council find the projects of the CIP to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones and Rocha NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Hemandez read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. 2. PLN2003-17 Razavi, R & N Heating to consider the application of Ray and Nicole Razavi for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-17) to allow a 45-inch high (50 inches with the decorative posts) front yard fence, whereas Code limits such front yard fence heights to 42-inches, on property owned by Ray and Nicole Razavi located at 920 Marilyn Drive in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Planning Commission decision final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 4 Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a fence exception to allow fencing in excess of 42-inches in height permitted under the R-1 Zoning Ordinance. · Said that the installed fence was inadvertently installed at a 45-inch height with 50-inch high decorative posts. · Informed that the Public Works and Community Development Directors can approve an exception to fence height requirements but that such an approval requires consent from adjacent neighbors. The applicant, in this case, has consent from three of four neighbors. · Said that the Traffic Engineer has made the determination that this fence, as installed, does not impact visibility. · Added that staff does not find that this fence creates an undesirable or unattractive situation. · Recommended that the Commission adopt a Resolution approving the fence at 45-inches in height with 50-inch high decorative posts. Commissioner Alderete pointed out that per the Municipal Code, the height of a fence is measured from the finished grade to the highest point. Therefore, he questioned whether the fence exception is 3-inches or 8-inches. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley agreed that portions are 50-inches high, the exception is being considered as 3-inches for the main portion of this 45-inch high fence with 8-inch exception for the 50-inch high decorative posts. Chair Hernandez asked what the intent is behind the Ordinance. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied that the intent is to have a fence at a safe height in terms of visibility and the issues of height includes the heights of planted shrubs. Commissioner Doorley presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC reviewed this project on March 25, 2003, and was supportive. Chair Hernandez opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Tom Andrianos, 932 Marilyn Avenue, Campbell: · Advised that he purchased his home in 1999 and immediately began installing improvements to his property from new gutters to landscaping, spending several thousand dollars. · Said that his neighbor had initially said he had plans to install a picket fence. · Stated that they have been harassed about the issue of the fence and that when he suggested having a survey done, the neighbor refused, saying he planned to build a wall. · Said that the neighbor has purposely built a fence to spite them because they have complained about their dogs. · Added that he has spoken with a realtor who advised him that this fence is not compatible with the neighborhood and depreciates his property by 7 to 14 percent. · Pointed out that the General Plan discourages features that are not compatible with the surrounding area. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 5 · Described this fence as a "backyard fence in a front yard" and said that existing homes should not be walled off. · Added that they have not seen such a fence anywhere else in the City. · Asked that the fence be reduced or removed rather than be allowed to remain. · Provided photographs of his neighborhood. · Stated that this fence, as installed, blocks their site of view out of their front bedroom window. Chair Hemandez asked Mr. Tom Andrianos for more information about their mediation attempt. Mr. Tom Andrianos: · Said that the neighbors have two dogs that are not properly leashed. · Added that they had to call in a complaint to the Police Department. · Stated that the neighbors agreed to leash their dogs and fence in their front yard but learned at the Mediation with the Police Department that dogs must be enclosed within 6-foot high fences. Commissioner Alderete asked Mr. Andrianos if his family feels threatened by these dogs. Mr. Tom Andrianos replied that his wife runs a day care from their home and there is a liability issue if one of the dogs came over and bid one of her day care kids. Commissioner Alderete asked if they feel threatened. Mr. Tom Andrianos replied yes, adding that his son is deathly afraid of dogs. Mr. Ray Razavi, 920 Marilyn Drive, Campbell: · Stated that he is available for questions. · Said that he wanted to be on record as stating that what Mr. Tom Andrianos is saying is not true. Commissioner Rocha asked Mr. Ray Razavi if he had built this front yard fence to constrain his dogs. Mr. Ray Razavi: · Said that he spoke with Captain Patterson at the Campbell Police Department and was told that it would be okay to have a dog off leash in a fence in front yard. · Added that he gave his neighbors the opportunity to cooperate and has letters on file with the Police Department to attest to that fact. · Said that he had initiated mediation, sending two letters to the Andrianos family, but they refused so he went ahead and put the fence up. · Pointed out that he had undergone the Fence Exception process for their rear fence and would have done so in this case if he had thought it necessary. · Said that since the installation of his front yard fencing, his dogs have come out only on one occasion. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 6 · Added that after the installation of the fence, Mrs. Andrianos began taking pictures and took them to the Police Department and they ended up in mediation through the Police Department. · Said that he was made aware that his dogs would have to be secured by a six-foot high fence or be on leash. At one time, his dogs were on a five-foot leash and Mrs. Andrianos called the Police to complain about the length of the leash. · Reiterated that his dogs have only been out one time since the installation of the fence. · Added his suspicions that Mrs. Andrianos deliberately had her son pass by his fence simple to take a picture of his dogs. · Stated that the Andrianos family is the only one they have problems with on the block. · Pointed out that the Andrianos family installed a fence in their rear yard without benefit of a Fence Exception even though she is a City Commissioner. Commissioner Rocha asked Mr. Ray Razavi if it was his intention to have his dogs unleashed in his front yard. Mr. Ray Razavi assured that his dogs are only in the backyard. Commissioner Rocha sought assurances that the front yard fencing was not intended to serve as a pen for the Razavis' dogs. Mr. Ray Razavi: · Said that he they are gardening in front; they would like to have their dogs out with them. Pointed out that the Andrianos family initiated the idea of their putting up a fence in their front yard. · Added that there have been no complaints since the fence was put up. · Assured that their intent is simply to provide privacy from their neighbor. · Said that racially biased comments have been directed to him. Commissioner Alderete: · Asked about Mr. Razavi's letter of February 27, 2003, wherein he mentions that he gave his fence contractor the Ordinance requirements for front yard fencing. · Added that since the fence was not built accordingly, does the contractor not have some liability. Mr. Ray Razavi said that he spoke with the Police Department prior to paying the balance on the fence bill. Added that he would have gone through the process for a fence exception as he did for his rear yard fence if he had thought it necessary. Chair Hemandez pointed out that the relations with their neighbors are strained and asked Mr. Razavi if he believes this relationship is unrepairable. Mr. Ray Razavi: · Said that he would live his own life and his neighbors would live their own lives. · Added that their comments are unnecessary. · Pointed out that their dogs are their children. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 7 · Assured that things should be fine. Commissioner Francois asked if the animals have been back in the front yard. Mr. Ray Razavi said not since the mediation. Commissioner Francois asked Mr. Razavi if he believes that his dogs are capable of jumping over the fence. Mr. Ray Razavi: · Replied "your guess is as good as mine." · Pointed out that these are large dogs, 90 pounds each. · Added that they have gone to obedience school and listen to him. · Stated that he does not want this situation to get any worse than it is now. Commissioner Francois said that the dogs need to be leashed when in front. Commissioner Rocha asked how old the dogs are. Mr. Ray Razavi replied two and three years old. Commissioner Jones queried whether the Commission is considering a dog or a fence issue. Director Sharon Fierro replied a fence issue. Commissioner Gibbons: · Pointed out that front yard fencing is not common in Campbell. · Asked Mr. Razavi whether he would have installed this type of fencing if he had been aware that his dogs could still not be secured unleashed within that fenced area. Mr. Ray Razavi replied that there is a very serious privacy issue here. Ms. Linda Andrianos, 932 Marilyn Avenue, Campbell: · Said that this not a privacy issue but a dog issue. · Reminded that she operates a day care and that there have been many instances where these dogs have been on her property, even knocking over a four year old child. · Said that Mr. Razavi was well aware of the requirement of either a six-foot high fence or leash to secure his dogs. · Said that her home has no line-of-site from the front with this newly installed fence. · Added that when they reached over to place sealant on the fence, the drippings killed all of her plantings along that fence. · Advised that the dogs were out today and last week too. Commissioner Gibbons asked Ms. Linda Andrianos if the key issue is the dogs. Ms. Linda Andrianos: · Replied no, the fence is the issue. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 8 · Added that the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan is clear on its intents not to have such fencing in the front of properties. · Advised that she is now looking for a new house to get away from this situation. Ms. Meg Stein, 1203 Hazel Avenue, Campbell: · Said she serves as liaison for the San Tomas Neighborhood Association. · Read the mission statement for the San Tomas Neighborhood Association whereby the goal is to review development projects for consistency with the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. · Added that as the representative of the San Tomas Neighborhood Association, she cannot comment on this fencing issue. · Said from a personal standpoint, she drove by the site and admits that she has never seen a fence quite like that in a front yard but cannot speak to the issue as she does not live in that neighborhood. Chair Hernandez closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Doorley: · Said that while he would not personally choose that style of fencing. · Said that while SARC considered this proposal, they considered whether lowering this fence by a few inches would offer visual improvement and came to the conclusion that the answer is no. · Stated that the applicant has the right to a solid fence even if he personally does not like it. · Said that the other issues between these neighbors were not discussed at SARC. Commissioner Rocha: · Said that he drove down the neighborhood and found a couple of other homes with front yard fencing including a cyclone fence at 735 Marilyn, wood fences at 805 and 852 Marilyn and a picket fence at 816 Marilyn. · Added that the neighborhood overall does not have a lot of solid wood fences. · Stated that this fencing appears to create an appearance of a fiefdom. · Said that he would not ask to have the fence taken down for a couple of inches. · Stated that property frontages look nicer without being fenced in. Commissioner Gibbons: · Concurred. · Said that the bulk of the fence is 45 inches versus the allowed 42-inch height with the posts being a decorative feature at 50-inches in height. · Stated that this error was not done intentionally. · Added that it is reasonable to assume that these dogs can jump over either a 42 or 45-inch high fence. · Stated that SARC determined that there is no benefit in having the 45-inch fence reduced. · Said that she believed this fence was built to keep the dogs in and that intention did not work out and the dogs must still be kept in the rear yard. · Said that this is an unfortunate situation on many levels. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 9 Commissioner Francois: · Stated that the issue is dogs. · Added that it is a clear-cut case that this is a couple of neighbors who cannot agree. · Agreed that this type of fencing would not be his choice but the applicant has a right to put up a fence. Commissioner Jones asked if there could be a limitation of the Fence Exception to the lifespan of this particular fence. City Attorney William Seligmann said that this restriction is possible, either by stating life of the fence or selecting a specific number of years for this approval. Chair Hernandez asked if there isn't a setback requirement for the placement of this fencing. Director Sharon Fierro replied that the fencing can be installed anywhere on the front yard as long as it is located on private property and not within the public right-of-way. Chair Hernandez: · Said that there are two issues, the dogs and safety. The dog issue is a civil matter. The 3- inch extra height does not impact the require visibility. · Expressed his regret that there are not more guidelines on this issue. Commissioner Alderete: · Said that the fence is already built and being considered after the fact. · Said that the strained relations between these two neighbors compound this issue. · Pointed out that according to the Ordinance, this fence is actually a 50-inch fence with a requirement for an 8-inch exception. · Said that he wished this fence had a different design from a solid wall, pointing out that picket fences are more typical. Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that if this fence request were being reviewed prior to installation, the applicant would be limited to 42-inches in fence height and that the extra height is only being considered because the fence has already been installed. Commissioner Jones asked for the typical life of a wood fence. Director Sharon Fierro replied 10 to 15 years. Suggested that the fence be approved exactly as it is shown and not to be rebuilt. Commissioner Rocha said that he is a dog owner and believes there is a strong likelihood that these dogs could jump over this fence. Commissioner Alderete expressed concern over the potential liability for the City in the event that this fence is approved and a dog jumps over this fence and mauls a child. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the City is immune from liability over discretionary approvals such as this. Planning Commission Minutes of April 8, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Gibbons pointed out that through the arbitration process it has been determined that the dogs would be on leash when in the front yard. Chair Hemandez said that the issue of the dogs exists with or without the fence. Commissioner Doorley: · Encouraged the Commission to consider the fence issue without the dog issue. · Said that the issue is the excess height and whether the fence would significantly be improved if reduced by 3 inches. · Added that a second consideration is whether this fence was intentionally constructed higher than allowed and said that he did not think this is the case here. · Said that he would not be considering the dog issue in his considerations of this request. Commissioner Rocha mentioned Mr. Razavi's letter wherein he said he spoke with staff on the extra height and was assured that it would not be a big problem. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley admitted that he is the staff person Mr. Razavi spoke with and agreed that he had indicated to Mr. Razavi that this additional fence height would not be a big problem unless someone were to complain and it became a Code Enforcement action. Commissioner Alderete once again asked if the fence exception is for a 45 or 504nch height. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied that the fence's highest point is at 50-inches in height but that if this request is approved, it should be for a 45-inch high fence with 50-inch high decorative posts. Commissioner Alderete said that he does not want to diminish the discrepancy of 8-inches from allowed height. Commissioner Jones suggested that no matter what the decision, this won't change a thing happening between these neighbors. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3486 approving a Fence Exception (PLN2003-17) to allow a 45-inch high (50-inches with the decorative posts) front yard fence on property owned by Ray and Nicole Razavi located at 920 Marilyn Drive with the added Condition that this approval is good for a 10-year period and the fence is to remain as it is today and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones and Rocha NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None o~ 'OecHA~.9 ° PLN2003-1? Razavi, R & N Attachment #3 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF April 8, 2002 Hearing to consider the application of Ray and Nicole Razavi for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-17) to allow a 45-inch high (50 inches with the decorative posts) front yard fence, whereas Code limits such front yard fence heights to 42-inches, on property oWned by Ray and Nicole Razavi located at 920 Marilyn Drive in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following action: Adopt a resolution, incorporating the attached findings, approving a fence exception for a fence to allow a 45-inch high (50 inches with the decorative posts) in a front yard area on property located at 920 Marilyn Drive and find that this project is categorically exempt under Section 15303(e) Class 3 of the California Environmental Quality Act, (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); therefore, no environmental action is required. DISCUSSION Applicant's request: The applicant is requesting approval of a fence exception to allow the installation of a higher fence surrounding their front yard area. The subject property is located on the east side of Marilyn Drive south of its intersection with Lana Court. The requested fence height is to permit a fence height of 45 inches with posts at 50 inches, where a 42 inches is the maximum allowed without a fence exception. Fence Exception Requirements: Under Chapter 21.59.090 of the Campbell Municipal Code, fences not higher than three and one-half feet (42 inches) in height are permitted up to and along the front and side property lines of interior lots in the front fifteen feet of the residential yard. Fences higher than 42 inches in height require approval of a Fence Exception. The Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Public Works Director, may approve fences exceeding 42 inches when it is determined that the change would not impair pedestrian and vehicular safety and that it will result in a more desirable layout and will not be detrimental to the public welfare. The property owner must submit letters of consent from all adjacent property owners prior to any approval. If one or more property owners objects to the fence exception, the application must be referred to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Stair Report for April 8, 2003 PLN2003o17 920 Marilyn Drive - Fence Exception Page 2 Referral to Planning Commission: Letters of consent were obtained from property owners at 917, 908 and 929 Marilyn Drive. The City did not received a letter of consent from the adjacent property owner at 932 Marilyn Drive to the south. Consequently, this matter is being referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. Fence Height/Design: The height of the existing fence from the finished grade of the applicant's property is 45 inches which is an increase of three inches over the 42 inch limit. The post and decorative caps located at eight foot intervals measure 50 inches, exceeding the maximum height by 8 inches. The fence design is a solid board good neighbor style fence. The applicant is requesting approval of the fence exception to allow the decorative fence post with caps and the fence height that was inadvertently constructed three and eight inches over the standard fence height of 42 inches. Staff Recommendation: In accordance with the findings specified in the fence provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Staff finds that the requested exception does not impair pedestrian or vehicular safety and that the increased fence height does not create an undesirable site design or layout. Site and Architectural Review Committee: The Site and Architectural Review Committee reviewed this application at its meeting of March 25, 2003 and was supportive of the requested exception. Attachments: 1. Findings for Approval 2. Conditions of Approval 3. Applicant's Statement 4. Letters of Consent 5. Exhibits 6. Location Map Submitted by: Tim J. H~y, P~ssociate Planner Approved by: ~Ge~ff §r~dley, Senior Planner FINDINGS FOR OF FILE NO. PLN 2003-17 SITE ADDRESS: 920 Marilyn Drive APPLICANT: Ray and Nicole Razavi P.C. MEETING: April 8, 2003 The Planning Commission finds with regard to file PLN 2003-17 for approval of a fence exception as follows: The proposed front yard fence exception consists of a solid wooden fence with a height of 45 inches and decorative post and caps of 50 inches above the existing grade of the subject property where a 42 inch fence is typically permitted. 2. The proposed fence height extension is not detrimental to the visual appearance of the subject fence with the height extension and other approved fences on the property. 3. The proposed fence height extension enhances the aesthetic appearance of the 42 inch fence by providing additional variation and wood details. 4. The proposed fence height extension does not impair pedestrian or vehicular visibility. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: 1. The requested fence exception does not impair pedestrian or vehicular safety. 2. The requested fence exception results in a desirable fence design with decorative posts rather more a simple board fence with a height of 42 inches. The requested fence exception will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or will be not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PLN 2003-17 SITE ADDRESS: 920 Marilyn Drive APPLICANT: Ray and Nicole Ravazi P.C. MEETING: April 8, 2003 The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is required to meet the following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. Approved Project: A fence exception is granted for the property located at 920 Marilyn Drive to allow 45 inch solid wood fence with 50 inches decorative posts, along the front and side yards of the subject property. Project approval shall substantially comply with the applicant's request dated February 27, 2003 and the exhibits and photographs. March 28, 2003 0~ · CA4,/,° CITY oF CAMPBELL Community Development Department CAMPBELL ........... '-iliTI-- NOTICE OF HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the time of 7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, on Tuesday, April 8, 2003, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California, for a Hearing to consider the application of Ray and Nicole Razavi for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-17) to allow a 45-inch high (50 inches with the decorative posts) front yard fence, whereas Code limits such front yard fence heights to 42- inches, on property owned by Ray and Nicole Razavi located at 920 Marilyn Drive in an R-l-6 (Single Family Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum lot size) Zoning District. This project is Categorically Exempt. Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be advised that if you challenge the nature of the above project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Heating described in this Notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Campbell Planning Commission at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. Questions may be addressed to the Community Development Department at (408) 866-2140. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals must be submitted to the City Clerk in writing within 10 calendar days of an action by the Commission. 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 Community Development Department at (408) 866-2140, at least one week in advance of the meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL PLEASE NOTE: When calling about this Notice, please refer to File No. PLN2003-17 Address: 920 Marilyn Drive SHARON FIERRO SECRETARY 70 North First Street . Campbell, California 95008-1436 · TI1. 408.866.2 140 · FAX 408.871 .5 140 - H)I) 408.866.2790 CITY oF CAMPBELL Community Development Department CAMPBELL March 19, 2003 Re: PLN2003-17 - 920 Marilyn Drive - Fence Exception Dear Applicant: Please be advised that the above-referenced application has been scheduled for the following meeting(s): Site and Architectural Review Committee Meeting Date: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 Time: 6:15 p.m. Location: Doetsch Conference Room, City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell Planning Commission Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 8, 2003 Time: 7:30 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866- 2140. Sincerely, _ Tim J. Haley Associate Planner CC.' Ray & Nicole Razavi (Property Owners/Applicants) 920 Marilyn Drive Campbell, CA 95008 70 North First Street - Campbell, California 95OO8-1436 . TEl 408.866.2140 - F;XX 408.871.5 140 · T~¢D 408.866.2790 City of Campbell -- Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 To: Site and Architectural Review Committee From: Tim Haley, Associate Planner'~- Subject: 920 Marilyn Drive -- PLN 2003-17 Fence Exception for height of front yard fencing Date: March 18, 2003 Proposal The applicant is requesting approval of a Fence Exceptions to allow a front yard fence that exceeds the height limit of 42 inches for the first 15 feet of their front yard. The installed fence has a height of 45 inches and posts with decorative caps of 49 inches, thus exceeding the fence height limitation by 3 and 7 inches The fence design is a "good neighbor" solid board style wood fence with decorative posts. Planning Commission Review of Fence Exceptions Fence Exceptions typically are reviewed and approved by the Community Development and the Public Works Directors. Fence exceptions are reviewed by the Planning Commission when the applicant does not obtain a letter of consent from adjacent property owners. The applicant has obtained a letter of consent from three of the adjacent four property owners. However, the applicant has been unable to receive a letter of consent from the property owner to the south of their property. In order to approve the Fence Exception the Planning Commission must find that the requested Fence Exception: 1. Will not impair vehicular or pedestrian safety; 2. Will result in a more desirable site layout; 3. Will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of the City; and, 4. Will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. The City's Traffic Engineer has reviewed the fencing exception and concluded that it will not impair vehicular or pedestrian safety. Attachment: Letter of Request, Fencing Site Plan, and Exhibits Tim Hale}/ From: Sent: To: Subject: Matthew Jue Tuesday, March 04, 2003 5:54 PM Tim Hatey Fence Exception at 920 Marilyn Drive Tim, our intern looked the fence at 920 Marilyn Drive and found that the resident at 908 Marilyn Drive should not have a problem seeing over the fence to see street traffic. Therefore, Traffic Engineering doesn't have a problem with the fence exception. Matthew Jue, P.E., T.E. Campbell Traffic Engineer CAMPBELL City of Campbell -- Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 Transmittal To: Matthew Jue, Traffic Engineer From: Tim Haley, Associate Planner~~ Subject: Fence Exception - 920 Marilyn Drive Date: February 27, 2003 Please find enclosed a fence exception application to permit a 45 to 49 inch fence around the front yard at 920 Marilyn Drive. The applicant due to the grade of the property and the installation of decorative post is requesting an exception to the typical 42 inch limitation. Your review and recommendation regarding this fencing exception would be appreciated by March 7, 2003. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Tim Haley Associate Planner phone: 408 866 2144 timh @ cityofcampbell.com enclosure: exhibits ( 'ell (40,~'.~ 4~'5'-5393 RECEIVED CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPT. February 27, 2003 To whom it may concern, A section of our front yard fence, adjacem to Marilyn Drive is a couple of inches higher that the 42-inch limit. This was not done intentionally. The comractor was given the City Ordinance and the fence was built accordingly. All of our measurements were made with respect to the grass are of our property. These measurements turn out to be a couple of inches higher than the limit. We did get verbal approval from the Planning Department after the fence was built. Following Linda Andrianos's unreasonable complaint(s), we decided to get a documemed Fence Exception approval from the City. Any change to the current fence will rain the entire design. We respectfully ask that the Planning Commission approve the Fence Exception Application that we have submitted. Sincerely,. Ray Razavi Home (408) 374-4331 Cell (408) 483-5393 D9erman~aol. corn February 26, 2003 Dear Friends, My wife and I are applying for a Fence Exception Application in regards to the fence that was built 5 months ago on our front property. This document serves as a letter of consent for Campbell Planning Department. Your signature confirms that you do not have any objections as to the design or height of this fence. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Nicole Wayp. e~ ~j/a~zav_i. · Adjacent property owners: ?/7 Marilyn Drive Nam~t~r~/~ff 7/ Marilyn Drive ~ Marilyn Drive Name'~g~effe /~ ti ~.,S ignamre: Signature: February 24, 2003 Ray Razavi Nicole Wayne Razavi 920 Marilyn Drive Campbell, CA 95008 (408) 374-4331 RECEIVED FEB 2 2003 CITY OF C/ UP ELL PLANNING DEPT. Dear Mr. Haley, We received your letter dated February 11t~ 2003. As you recall, this letter pertains to the height of the fence that we erected on our front yard on or about October 23, 2002. I (Ray) immediately contacted you on thc phone to obtain further information on this matter. You told me that Linda Andrianos (our neighbor at 932 Marilyn Dr., Campbell, CA) has been complaining about our fence since its construction four months ago. You indicated that she had tried to get the City Council members to pass fence design ordinance for the City of Campbell. We know that since she was not successful in changing the City Ordinance, she proceeded to make multiple unreasonable complaints regarding the height of our fence, simply to harass us. This lead you to send us a notice regarding our front yard fence located at 920 Marilyn Drive, Campbell CA. According to you, the letter was sent not because the issue is problematic for the City, but merely because of Linda Andrianos's complaints. The letter states that the section of the fence along the street frontage is over 42 inches. During our phone conversation on Feb 12t~, you stated that the fence posts are "4 or 5 inches too high". As you are aware, the post extensions provide space for the designer caps that are mounted on them. In your letter we were given two options: lower the fence height or file a completed fence exception application and include a $138.00 fee as we had previously done with regards to the back-yard fence. We had obtained the fence height ordinance provisions from the Planning Department prior to construction of this fence. As you are also aware, we filed a fence exception application that was approved for the back-yard fence. The contractor was given a copy of the City Ordinance, and the fence was built accordingly. The article in November 20, 2002 of Campbell Reporter was brought to my attention by my neighbor across the street. He was in disbelief as to Linda's comments and complaints. I discussed the article with Sergeant Hartjie a few days later in our meeting at the Police Department. This article mentioned Linda's complaints and also indicated that our fence was a few inches too high. Since we had not paid-off`the contractor up to that date, I wanted to know exactly how much taller the fence was, and if we had to lower it. Sergeant Hartjie and the Planning Department told me that no change was necessary since the couple inches were not an issue for the City. Almost 5 months has gone by and we now receive your letter. Linda Andrianos continues to "abuse" her volunteer position in Parks & Recreation Commission, to harass us. Mayor Furtado, Campbell Police, and the Planning Department including yourself are aware of her constant unreasonable complaints. If the fence along the street is a few inches too tall, why is that a cause of concern for Linda and not the City of Campbell? Is Linda Andrianos's complaint(s) "reasonable"? If so what is her reasoning behind such complaint(s)? · Is it reasonable or fair to us to pay a $138.00 fence exception application fee five months after this fence was built even though the Planning Department and Sergeant Hartjie told us that the height was not an issue? We do not think so. · Is it reasonable or fair to us to pay hundreds of dollars to our contractor to lower the posts that are supposedly a few inches too high even though the Planning Department and Sergeant Hartjie told us that it was not an issue? (Not to mention that the design will be mined) This fence does not: 1. Impair pedestrian and/or vehicular safety 2. The layout could not be any better (all of our neighbors have commented about how good the fence looks) 3. It is not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood 4. It is not detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. We sincerely apologize for taking so much of your time. We have worked with the City of Campbell Planning Department every step of the way throughout the construction project, as it is our duty to do so. As you explained during our phone conversation, the City does not enforce "these types" of codes and/or ordinances unless there is a complaint by another resident. As you are also probably aware, there are numerous fences in the City that are built with total disregard to the City Ordinance and/or Codes (including Linda and Tom Andrianos home). We on the other hand, worked closely with the Planning Department on this construction. We were told that the fence did not require any change in height. Since this letter has been sent to us sole .1~ based on Mrs. Andrianos's complaint(s), we request that a reasonable explanation of this complaint be presented to us so that we can make further decisions on the matter. We feel that as residents of the City of Campbell, we are being discriminated against due to unreasonable and/or false complaints of Linda Andrianos. If there is any other reason why this letter was sent, please let us know! Thank you very much for your time. We look forward to resolving this matter promptly. Your help is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Ray Razavi Nicole Wayne Razavi Tim Hale~/ From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tim Haley Friday, October 25, 2002 4:55 PM Linda Andrianos Sharon Fierro; Geoff Bradley; Ben Mendoza Fence height- Linda: A member of the Planning staff visited your neighbor's property in regards to the front yard fencing. Local ordinances restrict front yard fencing to 42 inches(3.5 feet) in height for the first 15 feet in the front of properties and 6 feet thereafter. The solid board height measured 45 inches along the sidewalk and the decorative post measured 50 inches. Consequently, the fence exceeds the permitted height. complaint is filed, staff wilt pursue an enforcement action against the property owner. The general enforcement process involves notifying the property owner of the violation and giving them an opportunity to comply with the local ordinance. The local ordinance has an exception provision where your neighbor can seek approval of a fence exception to allow a higher fence. The fence exception process requires your neighbor to obtain support from yourself and other neighbors who are impacted by the fencing exception. ~[f your neighbor is not able to obtain support from neighbors, then the matter must be considered by the Planning Commission at a hearing. Please do not hesitate to call me at 866-2144 if you wish to discuss. Campbell Hunicipal Code: C. The planning director, upon recommendation of the director of public works, may approve lesser setbacks and heights greater than six feet for fences, walls, lattice work, screens and hedges when it is determined that the change would not impair pedestrian or vehicular safety and that it will result in a more desirable site layout and would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such change or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city. The applicant must submit a letter of consent from adjacent property owners prior to the approval of any change. Any decision of the planning director may be appealed as prescribed in Chapter 21.80, Appeals. Jif one or more adjacent property owners object to the change, the planning director shall refer the matter to the planning commission for a decision. D. The height of a fence, wall, lattice-work, screen or hedge shall be measured from the finished grade to the highest point of said structure or planting. Where the finished grade is a different elevation on either side of the structure or planting, the height shall be measured from the side having the highest elevation. (Ord. 1617 §1(part), 1986). Tim .~. Haley Associate Planner 408.866.2144 timh@ci.campbell.ca.us 920 i~.[aril, vn Drive Campbell, C/~ 95008 Phone (408) 374-4331 July 7, 2002 Dear Tom and Linda, We received your letter in which you responded to our request for mediation as it relates to building a boundary fence. It is unfortunate that you and Linda consider mediation and/or complying with governing laws a form of harassment! Nicole and I have learned that you and Linda have made unsuccessful attempts to turn our other neighbors against us. You have also tried to convince them to make false complaints against us and/or our dogs to the authorities in an effort to "run us out of this neighborhood". This is harassment! I, as well as other individual(s), have witnessed that you and/or Linda have made inaccurate reports to the authorities with respect to us and/or our dogs. This is harassment! We believe that this is not the way adults, particularly neighbors, shouM behave. As I have told both of you in previous meetings, we must find a rational and reasonable way to resolve our issues. It is evident that you and Linda refuse to do so. We also feel that Linda is abusing her position in the City of Campbell to falsely tarnish our image as residents of this city, by making such inaccurate and~or false reports. This is harassment! It is our belief that you and Linda refuse to deal with neighbor issues rationally. This became evident to us as you attempted to deal with the issues pertaining to the apartments behind your property, and its tenant's. As you recall, the problem was solved not by Tom taking his motorcycle to the apartments and making excessive noise to show them how much noise he can make, or by Linda making racist comments to the tenant's over the fence, which ultimately escalated the situation. My intervention was what resolved the matter. The letter that I prepared and sent to the building owner regarding your issues helped minimize the problems. The two of you have made comments about using the system and the law enforcement to "get rid of" neighbors that you simply "do not like ". According to the two of you, that is what you accomplished at your previous residence. We feel that your actions constitute abuse of the police and legal system. Your pattern of behavior was apparent as you were attempting to deal with your neighbors who reside behind your property at the apartment complex. Linda told me that she made numerous unrelated complaints to the authorities regarding the apartment tenant's behind your property. She also made comments about her position with the City of Campbell, individuals that she knows because of her job, and how she can use it to make these complaints. We are bringing these issues to your attention to let you know that there are better ways of dealing with these issues, issues that are very minor in our opinion. We are all rationale adults here. Rationale individuals discuss their issues and find a way to solve their problems.t As to Charlene's role for mediation, any neutral third party can do the job. Charlene told me, however, that Linda is not willing to participate in any type of mediation. We still believe that talking about this matter with the presence ora neutral third party can bring some form of resolution. We are not trying to coerce you into any illegal arrangement as you mentioned in your letter. We are not trying to force you into any legal arrangement either. We are not trying to force you into any arrangement! We are not forcing you into anything.t We simply gave you the facts and a chance to discuss them. We still believe that having a meeting and talking about this issue is the only reasonable approach in dealing with it. We have respected your family as our neighbors from the first day that we moved into this house. We believe in solving our problems by talking about them. I have provided you with my home and cellular number so that you can contact Nicole or me for any reason that you deem necessary. We have done everything we can to accommodate you and your family as our neighbors. We also have gone out of our way to accommodate Linda's daycare business that she operates from your home, in a residential neighborhood We do not have any concerns, issues, or problems continuing to do what we have been doing, accommodating you and your famil_¥ as our neighbors. We would like to put this matter behind us. But, we feel that the only way to deal with this matter is to talk about it with the presence of a neutral third party. We believe that our neighbor relationship is extremely important and can still be salvaged. We would hope that the two of you would give mediation a second thought. Your prompt response is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Rav~azavi Nicole Wayne lhomas and L nda Andr anos June 30, 2002 Ray Razavi Nicole Wayne 920 Marilyn Dr. Campbell, CA. 95008 Dear Ray and Nicole, We are submitting this letter to clarify our posiuon on these unfortunate circumstances, per your verbal request. We believe that requesting you to leash your dogs, who were terrifying my son, worrying my clients, and frightening passer-bys should have resolved this situation. By your own admission, your dogs have been maced by the mailman, torn down a portion of your neighbors rear fence, and now are doing the same to mme. You have received a letter from the same neighbors complaining about the constant barking yet you remain adamant that you have complete control and you refuse to leash your animals. The Campbell ordinance is rev/ clear; dogs are to be on a she foot leash or behind a six foot fince. My conversations with the Planning Director and the City attorney clarified this, as well. We have never had a desire to have a fence erected. In fact, we believe it detracts from the existing landscape, which is symmetrical, and will detract from the brick planter running along the front of both of our homes and most certainly will lower the property value. We will not pay for, maintain or agree to such a structure. Your attempt to coerce us into an illegal arrangement so that you would not have to comply with the law is harassment. I have consulted with our attorney and he will be notified if it continues. . Further, as she explained to you on the telephone, Charlene does not handle this type of mediation and she will be writing you a letter to clarify this. - 2 - July 2, 2002 It is our hope that this issue can be put behind us. It is important to us to have a comfortable and safe environment also, which certainly can be accomplished should you decide to comply with our many requests by keep/ng your dogs leashed. Sincerely, Thomas Andrianos Linda Andrianos 932 Marilyn Dr. Campbell, CA. 95008 920 ]Viarilyn Drive Campbell, CA 95008 £hone (408) 374-4331 D9E~4A~/t OL. COM June 24, 2002 Tom & Linda Andrianos 932 Marilyn Drive Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Tom & Linda, This letter is a follow-up of our conversation on March 23, 2002. As you recall, we agreed upon installing a fence that would divide our property ' s at 920 and 932 Marilyn Drive, Campbell CA. I took the initiative of obtaining estimates for installing the fence. I even offered to provide the labor personally, and only divide the cost of the material used for the boundary fence, a generous offer on my part. I additionally made an effort to agree upon a design for the fence. You never provided me with the estimate that you were supposed to obtain on a future date. You later notified me that you had changed your mind and that you and Linda were not going to pay for any of the cost associated with the boundary fence. I would like to draw your attention to California Civil Code Section 841. This code holds you responsible for maintaining the part of the fence that faces your property. This section of the fence is owned by you and should be maintained by you according to law. This makes you responsible for half of the cost offence, including labor and parts, for the section that divides our respected properties. California Civil Code section 841 states: "Coterminous owners are mutually bound equally to maintain: L The boundaries and monuments between them; 2. The fences between them, unless one of them chooses to let his land lie without fencing; in which case, if he afterwards incloses it, he must refund to the other a just proportion of the value, at that time, of any division fence made by the latter.' This California Code has been upheld by the Courts. "Landowner enclosing land so that fence erected by owner of adjoining tract answers purpose of division fence pay latter half of value of such fence." Gonzales v. Wasson (1876) 51 Cal. 295. "Demand of payment is sufficiently alleged in an action for one-half the cost of a partition fence, if the complaint shows the length of the fence, the value thereof at the time of inclosure, and that on a certain day plaintiff demanded one-half of said value from defendant, which was refused Meade v. Watson (1885) 8 P. 314; Meade v. Watson (1885) 8 P. 311, 67 Cal. 591. Nicole and I are still willing to work with the two of you on installing a boundary fence. I have contacted Charlene at Mediation Services. We think that a neutral third party will help resolve this matter. If you are interested in attending this mediation, please notify us or her within two weeks of the date on this letter. The mediator's phone is 408-720-1404. If we do not hear from you within two weeks of the date of this letter, we will assume that your position regarding this matter has not changed If that is the case, Nicole and I will tailor our actions to conform to the stipulation that you and Linda refuse to share the cost of a boundary fence. My goal has always been to provide an environment where all of us can live comfortably. I am sure that this is your goal as well. I believe it is important to resolve this matter as soon as possible. Sincerely, Ray Razavi Nicole Wayne