Loading...
PC Min 12/09/2003CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. TUESDAY DECEMBER 9, 2003 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 2003, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Hernandez and the following proceedings were had, to wit: ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Joseph D. Hemandez George Doorley Bob Alderete Tom Francois Elizabeth Gibbons Michael Rocha Bob Roseberry Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director: Senior Planner: Associate Planner: City Attorney: Reporting Secretary: Sharon Fierro Geoff I. Bradley Tim J. Haley William Seligmann Corinne A. Shinn APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: On motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Doorley, the Planning Commission minutes of November 25, 2003, were approved as submitted. (7-0) COMMUNICATIONS 1. Correspondence regarding Agenda Item No. 1. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no Agenda Modifications or Postponements. Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2003 Page 2 ORAL REQUESTS There were no Oral Requests. PUBLIC HEARING Chair Hernandez read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record. 1. PLN2003-126 Kiehtreiber Public Hearing to consider the application of Peter and Audrey Kiehtreiber for a Fence Exception (PLN2003-126) for a sideyard fence on property owned by Peter and Audrey Kiehtreiber located at 1509 Walnut Drive in an R-l-10 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicants are seeking approval for a fence that is higher than six feet on the southern property line. The rear 66-foot long portion to the garage will be eight feet. It will step down to seven feet and the final 15 feet at the front of the property will be four and a half feet high. · Informed that under the Ordinance, maximum allowed fence heights are from six feet to three and a half feet. · Explained that usually a Fence Exception is reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or Public Works Director and if there is consent by the participating neighbors the entire process is completed at staff level. · Added that if there is not consent by all involved property owners, the Fence Exception is brought to the Planning Commission for public hearing. · Said that staff is recommending approval and that a letter has been distributed this evening from the adjacent property owner's attorney. In the staff report, there is a letter of support from the rear yard neighbor. Chair Hernandez asked if the previous Fence Exception approved for this property's rear fence was constructed at the approved six and a half feet in height. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied yes. Chair Hernandez asked about the current fence heights. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied the back portion of this sideyard fence is six feet and there is a four foot section at the front of the property. Photographs are provided in the staff report. Commissioner Alderete asked if the letter from the attorney is consistent with the recommendations. Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2003 Page 3 Associate Planner Tim J. Haley said the applicant is proposing a good neighbor style fence or board on board. The letter asks that the fence be constructed of Redwood while the applicant does not specify. Commissioner Alderete asked about the adjacent neighbor. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied that the letter is from the attorney representing the adjacent neighbor. Commissioner Alderete said that he would only support contingent on approval of the conditions outlined in the attorney's letter. It appears if these conditions are not met, the neighbors do not give their consent. Chair Hernandez asked if this is the only neighbor not to consent. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley replied that only two are impacted. Chair Hernandez opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber, Applicant and Owner, 1509 Walnut Drive, Campbell: Said that she is available for questions. · Explained that the existing fence heights are five foot, eleven inches at the back and four- and-a-half feet at the front. · Advised that she has obtained several construction quotes. The fences are being quoted with Douglas Fir posts and kickboards. The main boards would be select Redwood, which are high quality with few or no knot holes or voids. · Said that Item No. 3 in the attorney's letter is not applicable. · Advised that relative to Item No. 4 in the attorney's letter, they are proposing to place the new fence on the same line as the existing fence. · Explained that the survey requested as Item No. 5 in the attorney's letter is already publicly available. Commissioner Gibbons asked why the fence on the other side is not involved. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber replied that that the fence on the other side of her property is newer and in better condition and does not need to be changed. The fence proposed for replacement is needed to provide additional privacy. Mr. Peter Kiehtreiber, Applicant and Owner, 1509 Walnut Drive, Campbell, added that the existing fence is not a board on board style and has gaps. Commissioner Alderete asked for all of the reasons to support this request. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber: · Stated that the intent is for privacy. · Said that their adjacent neighbor is litigating against them. · Said that the privacy to be provided will help both properties and is a critical issue. Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2003 Page 4 Advised that she did not feel that it is appropriate for her to involve the City in all the issues between these two households and that she prefers to stick to the topic before the Planning Commission, which is the fence. Commissioner Alderete reiterated his request for all the reasons. Mr. Peter Kiehtreiber stated that their neighbors have sued them because their children can see them in their backyard. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber pointed out that the man next door is tall at six feet, four inches. He can see over the existing fence. Mr. Peter Kiehtreiber said that they are simply trying to defend themselves against the lawsuit from their neighbors. Commissioner Alderete asked if the proposed materials would be sufficient to prevent viewing into their yard. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber replied yes, they propose high quality materials. Chair Hemandez closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Doorley asked for clarification as to whether the fence's structural composition in the staff report and within the attorney's letter are essentially the same. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley replied no. Specifics are not contained within the staff report. However, a fence at this proposed height will be subject to structural review for Building permits. Commissioner Doorley asked for guidance on how the Commission can incorporate the neighbor's requests. Commissioner Gibbons asked the City Attorney to discuss purview issues, saying that some of the issues raised in the attorney's letter appear to be beyond the purview of the Commission. Asked if the Commission can and/or should specify. City Attorney William Seligmann advised that the Commission could specify materials. On the other hand, the issue of who is responsible for cost for removal of the existing fence is a civil matter. Commissioner Rocha said that he did not feel he wanted to designate on what side of the property line the new fence should be located. He supports placement on the property line itself. Commissioner Gibbons: · Pointed out that any Fence Exception requires Planning Commission approvals if all impacted neighbors do not agree. It appears the neighbors will support this fence under conditions outlined in their attorney's letter. Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2003 Page 5 Said that the issue for the Commission is the height of the fence rather than the materials or placement. Commissioner Doorley: · Stated that the fence is where it ought to be. Suggested that the Commission focus on Items 1 and 2 from the attorney's letter. · Expressed support for approving a similar material to what is proposed in the letter. · Said he is not interested in becoming involved in some of the issues raised in the letter (Items 3, 4 and 5). Chair Hemandez reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber, Applicant and Owner, 1509 Walnut Drive, Campbell: · Said that Heart B Redwood is generally not used for fences because it is prohibitively expensive. · Advised that her quotes are all for quality Redwood, clear and select. It is expensive wood but not Heart B. · Added that they want to use pressure treated wood for the posts and kickboards. · Assured that this fence would be built to last and will provide a visually strong barrier. Chair Hernandez asked Ms. Kiehtreiber whether she has seen the letter from the attorney. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber said that she saw it today. Chair Hernandez asked Ms. Kiehtreiber whether it is possible for them to work further with the neighbors as they do not appear to be far off. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber: · Said that they have tried to work with these neighbors for three years and the neighbors have sued them. · Stated that she is very exasperated. · Informed the Commission that both sides met last week with their respective attorneys. · Assured that they have tried to dialog for a very long time. · Asked the Commission to approve their Fence Exception. Chair Hernandez asked if there is any possibility for success. Mr. Peter Kiehtreiber replied that the Heart B wood requested by the neighbor is four times as expensive. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber added that the neighbor is also asking them to give up property by placing the fence on their side rather than on the existing property line. Mr. Peter Kiehtreiber stated that this is just the latest in a string of delaying tactics. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber said that they have tried many processes, including mediation, and are so frustrated. Asked that the Commission approve their reasonable request. Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2003 Page 6 Commissioner Francois asked if the fence is currently located on the property line. Ms. Audrey Kiehtreiber said that the fence is now located on the property line. She added that a fence is usually place on a shared property line and she sees no reason to change that placement here. Chair Hemandez questioned whether the adjacent neighbor or a representative was present this evening. No one replied. Chair Hernandez reclosed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Alderete: Clarified that the attorney's letter recommends placement "on or inside the property line." · Pointed out that the letter from the attorney indicates that the neighbor's concern is adult nudity in the backyard. · Questioned if this is the sole reason for the fence height requested. · Expressed concern for this request setting precedent in the future, saying that if approved, others may also ask for eight-foot high fences. City Attorney William Seligmann pointed out that the final three findings in the staff report are the most important considerations. The reasons for the fence request are not an issue. The issue is whether the fence height would cause a problem. Commissioner Alderete said that the result could be more taller fences as the result of this decision. Commissioner Doorley: · Stated that he is fine with the issue of privacy. · Added that there are many reasons why people want privacy and both sides here want privacy. · Pointed out that seven foot fences have been allowed before. · Said that privacy as a general concept is a well-trod path and this decision would not be precedent setting. · Said that he supports a high quality, seven-foot, good fence that is reasonable. Commissioner Gibbons: · Cautioned that parts of this fence are eight feet high. · Pointed out that this issue is before the Commission because the neighbors don't agree. · Said that the fence can't be higher if both sides don't agree. · Stated that since a representative from the other side is not here, whatever action is taken is not likely to be final. Director Sharon Fierro: · Clarified the authority of the Community Development Director, whereas issues such as fence heights can be dealt with at an administrative level when all sides concur using the Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2003 Page 7 standards under the Ordinance. In those cases where all parties do not agree, the matter goes to the Planning Commission to be considered in an open forum. Added that the Commission can approve or not, regardless of the objections of the neighbor and can impose reasonable conditions. A whole gamut of options is available. Advised that materials are usually more closely scrutinized on commercial properties than residential. Commissioner Doofley asked if there is any liability if sticking to Ordinance requirements. City Attorney William Seligmann replied no. Commissioner Roseberry: · Stated that the applicant will achieve their goal of privacy with their proposed materials. · Pointed out that sideyard fences are not noticed much but his area of concern is the four foot height at the front of the property. · Asked why that fence height is needed at that point. Commissioner Rocha: · Questioned whether this height might still not be high enough in the future. · Said that he does not want to have to play Solomon and/or to have to design "on the fly." · Stated that the issue appears to be the relationship between neighbors. Chair Hernandez reminded that the issue is privacy and said he agreed with the concern about the four-foot height at the front of the property. Associate Planner Tim J. Haley advised that this fence will be replacing existing fencing of the same height. Chair Hemandez: · Agreed that the Commission cannot deal with the problems between these neighbors but said that he is surprised that the next door neighbors or their representative are not here tonight. · Added that it appears they have conceded to the proposed height with their own conditions per their attorney's letter. Commissioner Alderete: · Said that the letter is what it is. · Added that he does not know a lot about quality of wood and asked if anyone can tell him the difference between the materials proposed by both sides. · Expressed his opinion that if all points outlined in the attorney's letter are not satisfied, the neighbors would not agree to this fence. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley advised that the Building Department requires pressure treated wood for any part of the fence that touches soil. Commissioner Roseberry pointed out that the photograph exhibits in the staff report show that the fence in place does not appear to have knot holes and asked if anyone knows the grade of wood for the existing fence. Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2003 Page 8 Commissioner Alderete cautioned that the photographs were not taken at a right angle, which would likely show the gaps in this fence. Commissioner Roseberry asked if the new fence would consist of overlapping boards. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley said that the fence would be board on board. Commissioner Gibbons questioned the advantage of a continuance to allow the neighbors to come to consensus. Chair Hernandez expressed support for the idea. Commissioner Gibbons added that if the neighbors can agree there would be no long-term implications. Chair Hemandez said he is supportive of the idea of a continuance but that one may not be fruitful. Commissioner Doorley: Suggested that the Commission play its role out rather than postponing a decision based upon a civil matter. · Pointed out the lack of an argument on the height issue in the attorney's letter. · Questioned how to best ensure a quality fence construction. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley suggested having "materials reviewed and approved by the Building Official and Community Development Director to ensure long-lasting life and durability." Director Sharon Fierro: · Reiterated that it is not the Commission's role this evening to condition durability. · Added that using pressure treated materials are preferred as they age well and are resistant to termite infestation. · Reminded that issues of privacy are a civil matter between two property owners. · Said that it would be to the Kiehtreiber's benefit to choose a wood without openings. City Attorney William Seligmann added that it is within the purview of the Commission to require a solid fence that is opaque. Senior Planner Geoff I. Bradley suggested language for Condition #2 so that "the fence materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official to ensure that the fence is long lasting and durable." Commissioner Francois: · Concurred with Commissioner Doorley that this dispute between neighbors has been on- going over the last three years. · Said that this request meets standards and that both households are entitled to privacy. · Stated that he is not looking at a continuance but would rather see this matter settled. Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2003 Page 9 Commissioner Gibbons said that she is not supportive of the opaque requirement. Commissioner Doorley asked Commissioner Gibbons if the requirement that the fence be long lasting and durable is acceptable. Commissioner Gibbons replied yes. Commissioner Alderete said that the reason stated for the fence is privacy. He added that height is not the only way to achieve privacy but also to ensure that there are no holes or cracks in the fence. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3531 approving a Fence Exception (PLN2003-126) for a sideyard fence on property owned by Peter and Audrey Kiehtreiber located at 1509 Walnut Drive with the added text to condition No. 2 that "the fence materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official to ensure that the fence is long lasting and durable," and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Doorley, Francois, Gibbons and Rocha NOES: Alderete, Hernandez and Roseberry ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Chair Hernandez reminded that this action is final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. PUBLIC HEARING Chair Hernandez read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record. 2. PLN2003127 Renshaw Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Wayne Renshaw, on behalf of Mr. Ray Matsumoto, for a Conditional Use Permit (PLN2003- 127) to allow the establishment of an auto-related use (Smog Check Only Station) in an existing commercial/industrial building located at 210 Cnrtner Avenue in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA. Project Planner: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Advised that the applicant is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Smog Check Only Station in an existing industrial/commercial building within a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District, which allows auto-related uses with a Conditional Use Permit. · Described the location as being the south part of Curtner near McGlincy Lane. The Hostess Bakery outlet is located at the front of the building with a warehouse use to the rear. The applicant would occupy 31 percent of the building or 2,290 square feet. Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2003 Page 10 · Said that there is adequate parking to serve this site. · Informed that the site was developed in the early 1970s and consists of just three percent landscaping. Some additions to the landscaping are proposed with this request. · Advised that staff is supportive and recommends that the Commission adopt a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to allow the establishment of a Smog Check Only Station. Commissioner Doorley presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as follows: · SARC reviewed this project at its meeting of November 25, 2003, and was supportive with the inclusion of additional landscaping as long as it does not impact parking or circulation on site. Chair Hemandez opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Paul Rumpler, Business Owner: · Advised that he is asking for a Conditional Use Permit for a Smog Test Only Station. · Described himself as a California native who has been in the auto field since 1990. He has an AA in Automotive Repair and has held a smog license since 1995. · Stated that the State has adopted the enhanced emissions program, which was implemented in the Bay Area, including Campbell, in October 2003. · Assured that his business will only test. No repairs are allowed and therefore there will be no oil, coolant or other waste. There will be no overnight customer parking. · Thanked staff and the Commission for their consideration. · Made himself available for questions. Commissioner Francois asked whether some sort of exhaust system is proposed to trap the fumes during the testing process. Mr. Paul Rumpler said that the State does not offer nor require an exhaust system. He will operate a large fan to direct fumes outdoors. Autos will be parked at the doorway with the tailpipe outdoors. Chair Hernandez closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Alderete, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3532 approving Conditional Use Permit (PLN2003-127) to allow the establishment of an auto-related use (Smog Check Only Station) in an existing commercial/industrial building located at 210 Curtner Avenue and found this project to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Doorley, Francois, Gibbons, Hernandez, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission Minutes of December 9, 2003 Page 11 Chair Hemandez reminded that this action is final in 10 calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. MISCELLANEOUS 3. Election of 2004 Chair and Vice Chair Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Gibbons, seconded by Commissioner Francois, the Planning Commission elected Commissioner George Doorley as Chair of the Planning Commission for 2004. (7-0) Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Alderete, the Planning Commission elected Commissioner Elizabeth Gibbons as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2004. (7-0) 4. Cancellation of December 23, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Doorley, seconded by Commissioner Rocha, the Planning Commission cancelled the Planning Commission meeting of December 23, 2003. (7-0) REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as presented with the following additions: Advised that Don Burr has been elected Mayor for 2004. Jane P. Kennedy was elected Vice Mayor for 2004. · Explained that the budget process is beginning and that there will be slim pickings for CIP projects next fiscal year. · Promised to provide updates to the Commission as information becomes available. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:47 p.m. to a Study Session immediately f°ll°wing and thereafte~°~h~e iei, i Re~i?missi°n Meeting °f January 13'2004. SUBMITTED BY: Corinn%A~,_~,h~ijxn, Recgrding Secretary APPROVED BY: Josepl~ Hernandez h~l~/