The URL can be used to link to this page

423 Castro CtCITY OF CAMPBELL 7 0 N O R T H F IRS T S TREE T CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 866-2100 FAX # (408) 379-2572 Department: City Clerk April 23, 1993 ~~e Ap ~~~~~ p~b1i~ ~ R ~ 6 1gg orks~~ n~'n~~r+f'.9 Mr. Richard Henry 423 Castro Court Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Mr. Henry: At its regular meeting of April 20, 1993, the City Council approved your request to have Park Impact Fees waived on the project to convert an existing accessory building to a secondary living unit at 423 Castro Court according to findings. Please do not hesitate to contact this office (866-2116) should you have any questions in regard to the City Council's action. Sincerely, Anne Bybee City Clerk Enc. cc. Tim Haley, Planning Department Michael Fuller, Public Works Department jh G" Kl ` ~ U~J MEMORANDUM ~ CITY OF CAMPBELL To: Gloria Sciara Oate: February 18, 1993 Planner I From: Michael Fuller ~a`'~ Assistant Engineer Subject: UP 93-01 423 Castro Court ---------------------------------------------------------- We recommend the following conditions of approval of the subject application: 1. Pay a Park Impact Fee of $7,035. 2. Provide three copies of a grading and drainage plan to the Building Division for review. ~~ DEPARTMENT COMMENT SHEET SITE & ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE PLANNING COMMISSION Date Routed: Completeness and Environmental Comments Due: General Comments Due: Planning Commission Meeting Date: ROUTE TO: Architectural Advisor Building Division Corporation Yard Engineering Division Fire Department RECEIVE® FEB 9193 Public WorIESIE~~"~''"o PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Richard Henry for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an additional living unit on property located at 423 Castro Court in a R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. APN: 307-07-066 Project Planner: Gloria Sciara ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: X Categorical Exemption Negative Declaration has been prepared Environmental Impact Report will be required If your department believes that additional environmental review is required, please attach an Initial Study identifying and discussing your areas of concern. Any environmental comments should be returned by: February 22,1993 DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: February 9,1993 February 22,1993 March 8, 1993 March 23, 1993 CODE REQUIREMENTS (IF RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL): SOOS6 e!uao~l~e~ !!agduae0 ~ano0 o~~se0 £z~ ' J12~N3H b~(lbd aNb a2~bH~12~ (~e~~ ~Cuu~a~) ~!u~ 6u!n!~ !~uo!~lppd ao~ aan~~na~s 6u!~s!xa ~o ap~a~d~ o ~ O C 0 T ryT+ /T~ /T~ "'~ L.L I.L ll o = ~MC~ao o N c*~ c+') N m a+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a O ~~~~ "' N ~ = ~ m m m ' ~ Q i ~ N r ~ ~ d ; f11 N 'fA .N •~ L d 4) N ~~~~ U ~ ~ d ~ ~ '~ N . ~~ add ~' ~o ~ ~~ O ~ ~~ o~ o ~ _~ a8 ~w i o ~ V ~p ~~ a. ~ $•- ~ co L.L a o du o ~ c~ _ ~' ~~~ Q ~~ ~ ~ ~~p A! o N M N ;; a N •3 l0 ~d Q ;o L O S ~ a ~ ~ O ~ L= c ((AA ~,T-T _mJa ~F-'C C7Z W r min m ~N a .~ ~ u. m' a z°~°nw~ a 0 c0 ~18'OS N C V O Q 'i+ N ~ _ Q Y ~ tC a O ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ a°~~~~ ~ ~ ~ v +~ I ~ O ~ ~ _a L___~__ ~~- . C' ~ .. G".. .--. ~= ~---i +i ,. 1.~.. . 1~~..~ .v II C o N ~ ~ I :.Q fC ~ N a~ O N N ~ ?+ = vi a~ +r a~ 7~ ~; .- a. ~auS £ 800S6 e!u~o~!!e~ !!agduae0 ~ano~ oa~.se; ~aays J~2iN3H b'~(ldd aN`d aid {~~~~ ~Cuuea~) ~!u~ 6uini~ ~euoi~lppd ao~ aan~ana~s ~ul~s!xa ~o ap N T N io ~ OO ~ ~ ~ ~ O •~ ~ ~ S LL ~ J C N L U Y r aaEwn~ ~I }^`, ^' W N ~` _0 u„' U o r- -;-- N r Q .~ ~~.( `V .; O t N m T ,W^ v/ 0 L~ N ,T^ W r O O L M~ W i •^~` l A ~~ i~ ',U N T T •~ T s~ as 800S6 e!uao~!I~0 Ilagdua~~ ~ano~ oa~.se~ -1 Jl2~N~H b'~fldd aNb' C72idH; (~el~ ~Cuu~a~) ~!u~ 6u!n!~ leuo!~!ppd ao~ aan~~na~s 6u!~s!xa ~o ap~a o .~ N O .- ~ m °~ 3 m ~ c ~ .V m ~ .c~3 3E cn E -o 0 Y o - 0 o mm n N '~ _~ ~ m tS1 U `_ r Z ~..~ O r f7 ~ l0 i 34 ~lAr~,-n C~w~wce~-~~ary ENGINEERING DIVISION CHECKLIST FOR '~~~ • ~'• ~~ TT T/7~...T Property Address : 4 2 3 ~ s~r o C~ , Date : Z- - I ~ -~ ~ ~ Date Received: z - °1- q 3 Date Due to ~!" ~~' .~ 3 - k- °i 3 Date Returned: Does the Site Plan show the following: 1. Distance from roadway center line to existing and proposed property lines yes no 2. Existing ease~µents as shown on tract/parcel map S~Pv~ gaaoen fi~ from Qro cr~ Inc yes 3. P . r Existing and proposed onsite improvements es no 4. Size of existing and proposed structures shown yes no 5. Addition more than 50$ 1~~~ STR EET IMPRnv~rFNmc• yes no 6. Are there existing street improvements? !y no 7. If not, where are the nearest existing improvements?: _ 8. Describe the existing adjacent improvements (margin 1, separated, rolled curb, etc.) : yer~~ c4 c~ r ~ sc ~~rQ f cc` ,~~ ~ k 9. Is dedication required? es n y o .- 10. If yes, is dedication shown on site plan? yes no 11. Are there other pending actions on this property (Parcel Maps, Site Approvals, Use Permits)?U P °l3-mil yes no 12. Has the Storm Drain Area Fee been paid? yes.\ no 13. Is the Park •Impact fee due? Amount $~ 3S yes no Calculation . ~ . ~ Z ~ ,~ ~~-y /At rG = 7 03.S~t r ~, ~~; fion~l un,~. In ial CLARA COUNTY CALIFGR'VI:, BOCK P A G E 307 7 -4_ , ` ~Fq ~~• <Ce'QO O \ O ~ ~ 2 ~°Q~ ? 6 s~ ~A3 `~ W 48.tY S / 37 F ~ ~' ~Y~„ ;~ 34 .;~s/ ~ oti ~ 6a, a ~~ . ry J r ;t1.67 - - 0~ P ~ -o ~B9s 6~O ~ 2 r ~ 4 ://. ~ / 3740 ' - .. ~ 30 Q 86.03 ?~ ~ . q Kip '..i.: / 40 `n 1 ~` ~'~i, ~,m „~ a s ~ ,o 3,~' N / ~ ~' 4/ ~ I _ 32 ~ ~ / a, 1 ~ 27 ° ~ 3 ~ / 5 ~ 6 / 7 ~ , w - - 105.98 __ ~ 158 04 _ N 47.4_ I 8 6., 5 82.14 ~ `j J ~ 9892- 79.82 60 65 I - ---- 0 30 28 ~;~ 246 1 245 ~I 244 I 243 I 242 I 241 m = I o; V ~ 10593 (I~ o~ gl R?( NI 1 ~ I _ - _ _ _.i 47 P, 46~-~ 45 ~I 44 ~I ~3 8~ 42 ti Q t 1 r' 29 I ~~B' S3 36.06 °' I q I I I l 29 ~ ~ ~ 1 X66 r ^' 57.16 60 60 ¢5 O - _t o 5 89 , o m ~6 /653 /64/ l6Y9 /6/7 _ - - - ~N 247 48 s ~ CALADO CT. ~ -~ Y ! - `" h ~ ?8 30 ; a, /BSO /s40 /630 I O ~ ~ ! `p8~ ,~s ~ 166 Y 57.16 60 6O 45 ' ~ Ai - 105.85 - -I / ~ ~ 36 O6 nom. I ~' i I I ' Z 1m r 49 ~~,~ 50 J` 5/ .cl 52 I 53 0l 54 ~, 0 f _ 105.80 - ~ " 248 ~ 249 ~ 250 I 251 I 252 ( 253 ~ ~ Z G ~ - - ~ 99 24 - 1 79.63 00 L - - - I 65 N { W ~ ~d ~, rSJa' ~~ t25 -~---25 ~-- r23 --- Q ,~ 30a v 32~ ~ ~ ~ 264 263 f ~'~ o ~ Q ~ `~~~e 100.04 ! .~4 I ,~, / ~,~ 25a 55 ~ ~ z ' c~ q3 65 ~ I 64 ° ~ ~ CIRCLE - - ~---~ ~ ~ -- - ~° 265 ~ ~ ~ - ~ r ~ _ _104 _ _ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ I 6B ~ 63 30 ~ 262 Q ' - t6 4seo "' ~s~P p5~ a 33 o- I o ~p 3 ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ i 255 ~s ° ' ~ Z ~ 60 _ ( 1~~3L24 301' \~?g }~.-_-3"-~-- NR o.o-_o5z1 -+------ '~ 1 ~" /Q r, - - I I _ , ! ~ Im 22 ~I 23 ,0 24 ~ o .~ U ~ , 62 261 ~~ 25s 57 ~ ! ! o h ~~ 1~ ~ 0 2ss 67 ,~ ~ ~ 7 I 36 I 35 >i 34 ~' 163.98 _ -23.1 - _u4 _, _ - r - .- _ I I 78 ~ -.0065 ____ ^,{ lj., 97 ~ 99JI t2b6 I J I ~---1-- ~ 70 ~; 2ss ~° 267 ~ ^ a ~ a ~ 6/ 260 2g7 - 58 ,°~ g ~ I I ~M t 1 3I I 30 i 29 I 28 ~N N~ - -=o:- _r ~ - too --~-- - too - Q , I p - T~I Q J 74 ~ 73 i L2 ~ Z/ II ~~ 2se 69 r ~ U a =~ 60 259 ~' 25e 59 r ~ ~ I 5o I ' b2 I 62 62 6995 05 v3 8. 94 84 30 { /TTI /T63 /T39 /713 /6B9 1 4 ------------- -- - ---------------------- - -= ~ ---- DR.----~~-- ~ 4~ II ~ _. Q ~t' 1 ~t' ~ 3:: l r I ~ • r `,; `:. ~Y ~ ! ~,, ~ ,: ~ ~~ ., r yR + r { : ,. ,~ ~ ... .. ~ .ate. i ,. ~ ~ ~ r,~ ~ ~ ,: ~- . ~ ~~ ~ ~ } << ~- ~•~ r ~, > ~, , ~, i ~ ~,: .. .. ~+l~ ~ ~r. ~ ,.: e ~4~ ; ~ ,~< ' r ., ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ^~(,~ ~. +~~~ss R - ~ ~ ~~'`~ '~ ~. r .. F ~ r 5- ~+ .,. ~, ~ ~ ~ - :~ ti ~ f~ ., _ i~ - ~~ ~~ ~` l ~ ~ ~~ _. ~.. -~z= ..~ ~ ~ . 3 '- __ ,6 ~ ~~ ~ ~'a1 ~ r • .ry ~ ' ~ ~4 ~~ a , .~ ~ ~/ ~ ~ + iA ~*ry / ~ ~ ~~ .~ -I•a~ ,~ :._, e~ `r d ~, «~ .. ~. ~~ x ._ ,„ r .~, ; ~, P 4 ~ 4 ~~. ~~. , ~. ~V: .~ *.. e .f~ Q' ~,` -~~ __ ,:,~ ,~ ~ ~, ~,: ~i ~~ ~ ~ .. ~" ~, ~~~ ~ QP - ~~ ~ . F .. ~- ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ x:~ p~ k City Council Item: Category: Public Hearing Title: Report Date: April 20, 1993 Appeal of Richard Henry of a Condition of Approval Requiring Park Impact Fees - IIP 93-01 - 4Z3 Castro Court RECOMMENDATION Continue Mr. Henry's appeal and direct staff to evaluate a revision to the park fee ordinance allowing for reduction or waiver of park fee for low income secondary units. DISCIISSION BACKGROUND. On March 23, 1993 the Campbell Planning Commission granted a conditional use permit to Mr. Richard Henry of 423 Castro Court. The permit is for the conversion of an existing accessory building to a secondary living unit. One of the conditions of approval of the use permit is the payment of a park impact fee in the amount of $7,035.00. The applicant was informed of the park impact fee at the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting of March 9, 1993. On April 1, 1993, the applicant sent a letter to the City appealing the park fee condition. This letter is attached for your reference. ANALYSIS. a) Park Fee Calculation The project which Mr. Henry has undertaken constitutes the creation of an additional dwelling unit. The park fee was calculated pursuant to the current ordinance, which stipulates that any person seeking a building permit for a residential building shall either dedicate land for park use or pay a park impact fee. The amount of the fee is based on the density of the development (number of dwelling units per acre), rather than on the size of the dwelling units. Mr. Henry's fee was calculated based on a density of six to thirteen units per acre. b) Planningr Commission Recommendation At the Planning Commission meeting of March 23, 1993, Mr. Henry expressed concern over the amount of the park impact fee, stating several reasons. First, Mr. Henry expressed that the park fee equals approximately one-third of his entire construction budget for the project. Second, Mr. Henry feels that his project, which is intended to provide housing for his elderly in-laws, will have little impact on the demand for parks in the City of Campbell: Finally, Mr. Henry advised the commission that he was not notified of the park impact fee until two weeks prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Had he know sooner, he may have reconsidered the entire project. City Council Report April 20, 1993 Park Fee Appeal, Richard Henry The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council evaluate the park fees imposed on second units, and that the Council consider waiving the park fee on Mr. Henry's project. A copy of the Planning Commission meeting minutes is attached for your reference. c) New Park Fee Ordinance The staff of Public Works Engineering, Planning, Community Services, and Redevelopment Agency, with the assistance of the City's attorney, William Seligmann, is currently in the process of drafting a revised park fee ordinance, needed to clarify a variety of issues. Staff proposes to include a provision for full or partial relief from park fees for secondary units which are to be designated low income housing. The specific language for this provision has not yet been drafted. FISCAL IMPACT If the park fee is waived for the subject application, the City will lose $7,035 of park impact fees. ALTERNATIVES 1. Grant Mr. Henry an appeal based on Section 20.26.070 of the Campbell Municipal Code, which allows for a reduction or waiver of park fee based on certain findings. A copy of this section is attached for your reference. 2. Deny Mr. Henry's appeal. 5 ~~ Prepared by : ~~ ~- ZT Asst. Eng. Assoc.~lanner Reviewed by: Approved by ng D ri Pub. Wks. Dir.1 City Attorney City Manager Attachments: Letter from Applicant Planning Commission Minutes (3/23/93) Section 20.26.070 of the Municipal Code Site Plan _ APR 01 '92 12~ SPM ASPECT TELECOMM 40E 441 2260 P 1 PoiMt" bpnG . Fa;; iransmittaf Memo 7s7z . .<. » ............ _. r~.~P,~ .. ~ ... :T°°~~°~:Y~i~,~3. .. ....'"' ~"~ ~Z; ss~rl ~... . .......... ~ ~: ...... ... _ C<xt'.+P3dL...Ct ..?c.awul~. .~L[~~.... .. _ .Flom ~{._ .~•... ~ .. .N£?~2Y. . . .» ......._ Cortpeny . ... _........_. _ ..... . .f.::.. `~°S .3~...Z.`-7, Z. _. ..- -• .....: TiNp~+one s`~8 8L b Z jGrD ... .... . . . .. .. .... s .. ...._ ..... ... , . Fig .... .. ..... . ... e * . ....... ..... .. :.. _ . .. ..... comments .. .. ...__. ..., _ _ . . ~~ ^ Da .... .. _ . ~ Rewm .... . . ~ Ciu for p~dwD _.. ~E._ _.,5~... _. ~~t?T..~.. Z?~15 :... _ ... P~P_....{S .. .~C12 .w. ~L~_ '~ T}i~ .. _ . ~. . N ~2,,~ . .-_ BUD ._l~" .. (T...ls _...I~d~ .AS. g~>vt~.:.. ~?. ~ t_ orJ e~u77o~! V E ~_ _.. _.....:...._. .._ ......... . APR~01 1993 Richard D. Henry 4Z3 Castro Court Campbell, CA 95008 April I, 1993 Campbell City Council City Of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Campbell City Council: CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING DEPT FILED APR 1 1993 UPFIC:E OF CI~I Y CL~KK CITY OF MPBELL ~4E~E8i/~ ~~ ~ . L~ : 7`~'!~xc~ AP!? 5 1993 '~`.~ " Rublic WorkslEngineerinq I was granted a conditional use permit oa March 23, 1993 by the Campbell Planning Commission (Resolution No. 2844.) One of the Conditions of Approval (numbs 11 under Public Works Department) was that I pay a Park Impact Fee of S7,035. The total cost of the improvement to the existing structure under consideration is less than 520,000. this fee represents over one third of the cost of the improvement. This is a place that I am preparing for my aging in-laws one of whom is confined to a wheelchair. I was not informed of the Pazk Impact Fee until two weeks before the building wmmission met to consider my application for the use permit. I have not budgeted for this fee and therefore am unable to both pay such a massive fee and fuush the construction on the unit. I am appealing to the City Council in accordance with section 21.80.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code to waive that fee. I understand that money is needed to keep pazks and other open space available in our city. I also understand that the City has established policies to support their goal to provide decent housing .and a suitable living environment for all Campbell households. In remodeling this existing structure I am attempting to provide affordable housing for two people in close proximity to my home so that my wife, my children and I will be able to help and make a positive family connection. The alternative to this living arrangement is very expensive and involves having strangers care for these people. The levying of such a disproportionate fee on such a small project appears to discourage what I am doing rather than encourage it. I feel that this fee is meant for developers and others who are subdividing land for commercial gain that will really have an unpact on parks. I am restricted to making this unit a one bedroom unit with no more than 640 total square feet. The building that will be converted matches that restriction. This is a very small unit. It is really not suitable for more than two people. This type of structure is meant to have very little if any impact on the surrounding community. The fee of $7035 would signify that the impact would be great. It is my understanding that the law that set forth the provisions for additional living units was done to encourage just the type of use that I have in mind. Please consider my appeal I do not know how i will proceed if I am required to pay this amount. I hope you will see that it does not make sense to levy such a large fee for such a small unit. I am complying with the stated goals of the City in converting this unit. I feel that if the fee remains that it is so large as to discourage what the City has stated it wants to encourage. Sincerely, C Richard D. Henry s*s Chairperson Alne read Item No. 2 into the record. 2. ITP 93-01 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Richard Henry for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of an existing accessory building as an additional living unit on property Iocated at 423 Castro Court in an R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the Staff report noting the following: * The applicant's request is to remodel an accessory building located at the rear of the project site, creating a secondary living unit. * The site location and size of the buildings. * The Sice and Architectural Advisor recommends revision of the porch element to enhance the entrance to the secondary living unit and an increase in perimeter of Planning Commission Minutes ojMan;h 23, 1993 3 landscaping on the site. * Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the project subject to the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Wilkinson withdrew from discussion on this item, due to conflict of interest. Commissioner Fox discussed the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting of March 9, 1993. The applicant had expressed concern relating to the proposed Park Dedication Fees. Commissioner Fox expressed a desire to recommend that the City waive the fees, recommended in the Staff Report (Condition No. 11, " Pay a Park Impact Fee of $7,035." Mr. Piasecki noted that it is not within the Commission's scope of duties to waive fees, and presented alternatives to staffs recommendation. Commissioner Fox again asked that part of the motion include a recommendation that City Council waive the fees. Mr. Piasecki stated that the Commission could forward an opinion to the City Council about the fees. Commissioner Fox asked if the Planning Staff is suggesting that the Commission adopt the resolution and include Condition No. 11, even though the Commission is opposed to that Condition. Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant could appeal to the Council, therefore, recommended approving the resolution as presented. Commissioner Fox briefed the Commission on the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting of March 9, 1993, noting that the Committee was supportive of the application .with the re~lsed porch element and increased landscaping. The applicant was agreeable. Chairperson Alne opened the Public Hearing. Public Comment: Mr. Richard Henry, the applicant, addressed the Commission noting the following: * He was not advised of the amount for the Park Dedicatiun Fee, upon filing his application for a Use Permit which was X1,450. Had he known of the additional fee amounting to X7,000, he would not have applied. He has been informed by the Planning Department that his application fee cannot be refunded. * He was building the unit to avoid placing an older parent in a home. Mr. Piasecki interjected that Park Dedication fees are required by law. Planning Commission Minutes of March 23, 1993 4 Commissioner Fox reviewed a prior application where a fee was waived due to its minimal nature. Chairperson Alne asked if Mr. Henry would clarify his request relating to the fee. Further, he suggested that since Park Dedication fees are required by law, it may be more appropriate to waive the Use Permit fee. Mr. Henry asked that the Commission make a very strong recommendation to the Council that the fee be waived, since he cannot pay it. Commissioner Fox asked that a recommendation be forwarded to the Council asking them to negotiate reducing the Park Dedication Fee and waive the Use Permit Fee, since Nir. Henry' was not appraised of the amount of the fee prior to filing his application. Further, Commissioner Fox implied that the fee structure be reviewed to allow minor Use Permit applicants to pay fee suitable to the size of their project He asked if Staff could construct a paragraph for the Commission to reflect the concerns discussed and forward it to the Council. The Commission concurred. Mr. Piasecki suggested that the fee structure could be reviewed for Park Assessment Fees to allow small budget projects creating minimal impacts to proceed. Commissioner Perrine cautioned the Commission about reducing fees due to potential future impacts from projects such as this on the City's park land. Chairperson Alne reminded the Commission that Mr. Henry was not properly notified of fees required, therefore, the Commission should recommend reducing or waiving the Park Dedication Fees or return his application fee. Mr. Piasecki discussed how fees were assessed, pointing out how difficult the formula would be to explain. Mr. Richard Emigh, 706 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, representing Mr. and Mrs. Cutting, 1273 Peggy Avenue, Campbell, noting support for Mr. Henry's request * He stated the same situation occurred with the approval of Mr. and Mrs. Cutting's application for an additional dwelling unit in Campbell. The required park fee of X11,000 was not mentioned prior to filing of the application. * He asked how a second dwelling unit such as the one being proposed (limited b}' ordinance to 600 square feet) could impact future parks in the City. * Additionall}', he commented that the City is making it unaffordable for people to provide second units on sites that are legally zoned for this purpose. * He made suggestions on how to resolve park dedication fee assessment concerns. Mr. Charles Cutting, 1273 Peggy Avenue, noted that he has owned his property since 1951, Planning Commission Minutes ojManh 23, 1993 S and has paid taxes to the City of Campbell since that time. Further, that review and assessment of fees should be reviewed for second units ("granny flame") ~~ applicants prior to their filing their applications. Mr. Seligmann provided a brief review of the fee assessment, which he stated is based upon the density of the development and a formula, times and amount of park land against the value of the project land. Mr. Cutting said that the plans presented for the project site, are nearly identical to his previously approved project and his fee was higher ($11,000). Mr. Piasecki pointed out the differences in the applications. Chairperson Alne asked Staff to provide Mr. Henry with help in filing the appeal. No one else wished to speak on this item. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner M er-Keane Pemne, the Public He wa ~ d3', seconded by ~mmi.~sioner a~g unanimously closed. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Per:ine, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- ~~edy, it was unanmously ordered that Resolution No. 2844 be adopted, aPPro~ the application, adding a request that the City Council evaluate the Park fees imposed on second units relative to Ordinance 1836 of the Campbell Municipal Code; that minutes of this meeting be fozwarded to the C'tY Council for their consideration and, that staff ~ ~~ fees for Mr. Henry; assist Mr. Henry in filing his appeal. The motion carried with the following roIl call vote: AYES: Comtnissdoners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioner. ABSTAIlV: Commissioner. Fox, Perrine, Akridge, Lindstz-om, Meyer-Kennedy, Fox, Aloe None None Wilkinson *** Further Discussion of Item No. 2 Mr. Henry asked how an appeal is filed and if there was a fee. Mr. Tim Haley explained the appeal procedure. Chairperson Alne reminded the Planning Staff that it is important to assist Mr. Henry further with filing the appeal, since he was not provided due notice for the fees, and because the fee structure may need review. Planning Commission Minutes ojtllarth ~, 1993 6 (b) A full or partial waiver of the fee or dedication requirements of this Chapter may be Qranted as an additional incentive for creation of affordable living units pursuant to section 21.62.40 of this Code, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 21.62. F. Section 20.26.070 is hereby revised to read as follows: 20.26.070: Appeals A. The developer of a project subject to a dedication or fee pursuant to this Chapter may appeal to the City Council for a reduction or adjustment to that requirement, or a waiver on any of the following grounds: 1. The absence of any reasonable relationship between the need for the park facilities and the impacts of the development; 2. The absence of any reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the impacts of the development; 3. The absence of a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the park facilities; or 4. The determination of the fair market value of residential property or recreational facilities in the City by the Public ilorks Director is unreasonable. lb B. The application for appeal shall be made in writing with the City Clerk not later than (1) ten days prior to the public hearing on the development permit application for the project, or (2) if no development permit is required, at the time-of the filing of the request for a building permit. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver, reduction or adjustment. C. The City Council shall consider the application at the public hearing on the permit application or at a separate hearing held within 60 days after the filing of the adjustment application, whichever is later. The decision of the City Council shall be final. If a reduction, adjustment, or waiver is granted, any change in use within the project shall invalidate the waiver, adjustment or reduction of the fee. Section Four: Application. The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to all prospective residential developments for which complete applications have not been recieved by the City. 17 shays £ 800S6 eiwo~i~e0 ~~agdwe0 ~no0 o~~se0 £Zt~ ~o L hays ~12iN3H b~fldd aNb~ a2ib'H~12i (~e~~ ~Cuuea0) ~iu0 6uini~ ~euoi~ippd ~o~ aan~~n~~s 6ui~sixa ~o ape~6d~ Q {O ~~~~~5 ...... . ~ \ r N tD N 0 O ~ N N r 0 a^ ~~ ~m a~ _¢ 0 Wa 0 0 J .O ~N Y N dq L a O ~$ u Y ~~v~ 3 $ 'y ~ ~ X Y L ~ ,'I Os! I. III ~III~I ~.~ .'I i_ ~. ~ a ¢s¢¢ ~ ~ s~~x E E ~ a ~ _ ~: ~ ~ v t ~$ ~ ~ E ~ ~~~ ~~a ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ N r ~: t~ V r .~~2~~~ N C .. ~ ~ ~ u ~~ Ny,~o~ ~a ; ~ ~ LL' ~ O w '~ c° 3 x .. ~ ~ °' v4 OL ~ ~ $~$ QQ ~ ~ ~ ;~; ;~ V ~ U Q ~ V t ~~°3`0 ~~ m ~f N Z ~ ni a; v jlll I'I I' , Y ~ `~ .. N .o-,~f $ ~ ~, g' e~^~ .Y A W C ~ t. -f -` f0 uxi C p°~. ~, 4 O ~ ~ ~• p / ~ ,' \ ~ , ~ ~ ~~ Y ~ ~ ~ B p ~ ~ ~t. N ~ V ~ , _ APR 01 '93 12~S7PM ASPECT TELECOMM 40E 441 2260 P.1 Post! • brans _ _ _ ..,_ . No. of Pa es Today Oate ~ Tlme l=a,c Transmittal Memo ls7z g r Y~i/ ~i : ss ~ ~~~ .. Fpm 93 Pi"'I Ccca'.iP3+~l ...Gtml:.~c,a~ut~ ~Ll ~~.:. , . i~[c-~'~ _ '~•....1~-(~Y............... _, ...... . ~~ ~ ~m~Y Location ': ~ri«, oepc: cn~rg~'. . .._.~~P" `'Fax ~ ~FaB .3~ ZS7 Tek one *~~ 8L 6 Zf Lb . .. . , Feii ~ ...,. ... r ... ~ Zblephore N ,. . ... . , .. ... Comments ~ ~ Original ~ Dasuoy ~ Aerurn ~ Cau for pkkuD _..... tk`~,°~.~......:5~..._."{'11?!cT....~..'t}YtS.:......1~~.....{S ...1=02 .w. ~~_ ~ TNT ....~I~~T €~;~r~/. ~O(l-G~.l~,~[1 rC~....__....P~1UD....1.f~' ... {T.. (.5 _....Nd.~1? :.~5 ail ~, l~ DI~J ~OIJ ~.:. . APR~U 1 199 ~ 1 L ~ D ' CITY OF CAMPBELL Richard D. Henry PLANN4NG DEPT. APR 1 1993 423 Castro Court Campbell, CA 95008 UFFICE OF Ci l Y CLtKK CITY OF ~pMPBELL April I, 1993 ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~/ ~ ~ ! C.,l-t, . Campbell City Council n ~- Cam` ~ ~~~'~~x `' Ci Of Cam beU ~Q.-. ~ 1993 '~' tY P 70 North First Street ~ Public WorkslEngineerina Campbell, CA 95008 Dear Campbell City Council: I was granted a conditional use permit on March 23, 1993 by the Campbell Planning Commission (Resolution No. 2844.) One of the Conditions of Approval (number 11 under Public Works Department} was that I pay a Park Impact Fee of $7,035. The tots[ cost of the improvement to the existing structure under consideration is less than $20,000. This fee represents over one third of the cost of the improvement. This is a place that I am preparing for my aging in-laws one of whom is confined to a wheelchair. I was not informed of the Park Impact Fee until two weeks before the building commission met to consider my application for the use permit. I have not budgeted for this fee and therefore am unable to both pay such a massive fee and finish the construction on the unit. I am appealing to the City Council in accordance with section 21.80.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code to waive that fee. I understand that money is needed to keep parks and other open space available in our city. I also understand that the City has established policies to support their goal to provide decent housing and a suitable living environment for all Campbell households. In remodeling this existing structure I am attempting to provide affordable housing far two people in close proximity to my home so that my wife, my children and I will be able to help and make a positive family connection. The alternative to this living arrangement is very expensive and involves having strangers care for these people. The levying of such a disproportionate fee on such a small project appears to discourage what I am doing rather than encourage it. I feel that this fee is meant for developers and others who are subdividing land for commercial gain that will really have an impact on parks. I am restricted to making this unit a one bedroom unit with no more than 640 total square feet. The building that will be converted matches that restriction. This is a very small unit. It is really not suitable for more than two people. This type of structure is meant to have very little if any impact an the surrounding community. The fee of $7035 would signify that the impact would be great. It is my understanding that the law that set forth the provisions for additional living units was done to encourage just the type of use that I have in mind. Please consider my appeal. I do not know how i will proceed if I am required to pay this amount. I hope you will see that it does not make sense to levy such a large fee for such a small unit. Yam complying with the stated goals of the Ciry in converting this unit. I feel that if the fee remains that it is so large as to discourage what the City has stated it wants to encourage. Sincerely, (,- Richard D. henry slaayS £ 800S6 eiu~o~i~e0 ~~agdwe0 ~ano~ o~~se0 £Zt~ ~o ~ 3aays J121N3H `d'lflb'd aNb~ a2~b~H~l?~ (~el~ ~CuueaO) ~iu~ 6uini~ leuoi~ippy ~o~ a~n~~na~s 6ui~sixa ~o ape~6d~ d a„ ~~ Q wa c 0 M J g ~ g _ E ~ ~ ~ s ~~~~ " 1 ~j ~'` ~ sa m ~'~YV N a s 3 _ iy ~~ ~ ~ 0 : ~~ a°Se 8 ..a a a p R ..~i ~~~ ~ ° a ~ ~YS ~~5 ~$ g~ ~ ~ ~L8'OS ~ $ ~ a ~~~.~ J~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~-a'''te`. ` • g ~ ~ ~ N •f• %;• m > O „ ayi ~ o ~ o N . ~a N I.: // • V /~~ .Y~ L F '~ T N I. `. `. `. `. `. `. `. `. `. `. `. `.: `. `. `. `. `.: `. `.: `. `. `. `. `. `. `. I~ Q it o o ~ .~. I.`.`.'.`.'.'.`.`.`.`.`. `. `. `.'. `. `. `. `.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.` ~ v C o R I ~, ~~~~ ~ °' ~~x~ ,, li"`o ~ \`. ;~ ~ Nz N~;v II,I ~~~ii v `~\\~~ ~ .o-.~ti ~ ~ C ~ ~r, ~ -sr! ~ ~ ~ N A W i+ W a W> O~ ,%~r O O ~ ti~~ ~ ~ N ~%~„~~ ~ ~ ~~ s ,~ a //; , p L 9 p 'e ~ V ~ " ~ " N 8 U' S } s** Chairperson Alne read Item No. 2 into the record. 2. UP 93-01 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Richard Henry for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of an existing accessory building as an additional living unit on property located at 423 Castro Court in an R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential)Zoning District. Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the Staff report noting the following: * The applicant's request is to remodel an accessory building located at the rear of the project site, creating a secondary living unit. * The site location and size of the buildings. * The Site and Architectural Advisor recommends revision of the porch element to enhance the entrance to the secondary living unit and an increase in perimeter of Planning Commission Minutes oJMarch 23, 1993 j landscaping on the site. * Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the project subject to the Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Wilkinson withdrew from discussion on this item, due to conflict of interest. Commissioner Fox discussed the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting of March 9, 1993. The applicant had expressed concern relating to the proposed Park Dedication Fees. Commissioner Fox expressed a desire to recommend that the City waive the fees, recommended in the Staff Report (Condition No. 11, " Pay a Park Impact Fee of $7,035." Mr. Piasecki noted that it is not within the Commission's scope of duties to waive fees, and presented alternatives to staffs recommendation. Commissioner Fox again asked that part of the motion include a recommendation that City Council waive the fees. Mr. Piasecki stated that the Commission could forward an opinion to the City Council about the fees. Commissioner Fox asked if the Planning Staff is suggesting that the Commission adopt the resolution and include Condition No. 11, even though the Gommission is opposed to that Condition. Mr. Piasecki said that the applicant could appeal to the Gouncil, therefore, recommended approving the resolution as presented. Commissioner Fox briefed the Commission on the Site and Architectural Review Committee meeting of March 9, 1993, noting that the Committee was supportive of the application .with the revised porch element and increased landscaping. The applicant was agreeable. Chairperson Alne opened the Public Hearing. Public Comment: Mr. Richard Henry, the applicant, addressed the Commission noting the following: * He was not advised of the amount for the Park Dedication Fee, upon filing his application for a Use Permit which was $1,450. Had he known of the additional fee amounting to $7,000, he would not have applied. He has been informed by the Planning Department that his application fee cannot be refunded. * He was building the unit to avoid placing an older parent in a home. Mr. Piasecki interjected that Park Dedication fees are required by law. Planning Commission Minutes oJMarch 23, 1993 4 Commissioner Fox reviewed a prior application where a fee was waived due to its minimal nature. Chairperson Alne asked if Mr. Henry would clarify his request relating to the fee. Further, he suggested that since Park Dedication fees are required by law, it may be more appropriate to waive the Use Permit fee. Mr. Henry asked that the Commission make a very strong recommendation to the Council that the fee be waived, since he cannot pay it. Commissioner Fox asked that a recommendation be forwarded to the Council asking them to negotiate reducing the Park Dedication Fee and waive the Use Permit Fee, since Mr. Henry was not appraised of the amount of the fee prior to filing his application. Further, Commissioner Fox implied that the fee structure be reviewed to allow minor Use Permit applicants to pay fee suitable to the size of their project. He asked if Staff could construct a paragraph for the Commission to reflect the concerns discussed and forward it to the Council. The Commission concurred. Mr. Piasecki suggested that the fee structure could be reviewed for Park Assessment Fees to allow small budget projects creating minimal impacts to proceed. Commissioner Perrine cautioned the Commission about reducing fees due to potential future impacts from projects such as this on the. Ciry's park land. Chairperson Alne reminded the Commission that Mr. Henry was not properly notified of fees required, therefore, the Commission should recommend reducing or waiving the Park Dedication Fees or return his application fee. Mr. Piasecki discussed how fees were assessed, pointing out how difficult the formula would be to explain. Mr. Richard Emigh, 706 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, representing Mr. and Mrs. Cutting, 1273 Peggy Avenue, Campbell, noting support for Mr. Henry's request. * He stated the same situation occurred with the approval of Mr. and Mrs. Cutting's application for an additional dwelling unit in Campbell. The required park fee of $11,000 was not mentioned prior to filing of the application. * He asked how a second dwelling unit such as the one being proposed (limited by ordinance to 600 square feet) could impact future parks in the City. * Additionally, he commented that the City is making it unaffordable for people to provide second units on sites that are legally zoned for this purpose. * He made suggestions on how to resolve park dedication fee assessment concerns. Mr. Charles Cutting, 1273 Peggy Avenue, noted that he has owned his property since 1951, Planning Commission Mi~tutes of March 23, 1993 5 and has paid taxes to the City of Campbell since that time. Further, that review and assessment of fees should be reviewed for second units ("granny flats") with applicants prior to their filing their applications. Mr. Seligmann provided a brief review of the fee assessment, which he stated is based upon the density of the development and a formula, times and amount of park land against the value of the project land. Mr. Cutting said that the plans presented for the project site, are nearly identical to his previously approved project and his fee was higher ($11,000). Mr. Piasecki pointed out the differences in the applications. Chairperson Alne asked Staff to provide Mr. Henry with help in filing the appeal. No one else wished to speak on this item. MOTION: On motion of Commmissioner Meyer-Kennedy, seconded by Commissioner Perrine, the Public Hearing was unanimously closed. MOTION: On motion of Commissioner Perrine, seconded by Commissioner Meyer- Kennedy, it was unanimously ordered that Resolution No. 2844 be adopted, approving the application, adding a request that the City Council evaluate the park fees imposed on second units relative to Ordinance 1836 of the Campbell Municipal Code; that minutes of this meeting be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration regarding waiving fees for Mr. Henry; and, that staff assist Mr. Henry in filing his appeal. The motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Fox, Perrine, Akridge, Lindstrom, Meyer-Kennedy, Fox, Aloe NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioner. None ABSTAIN: Commissioner: Wilkinson *** Further Discussion of Item No 2 Mr. Henry asked how an appeal is filed and if there was a fee. Mr. Tim Haley explained the appeal procedure. Chairperson Alne reminded the Planning Staff that it is important to assist Mr. Henry further with filing the appeal, since he was not provided due notice for the fees, and because the fee structure may need review. Planning Commission Minutes of Man:h 23, 1993 6 ITEM NO. 2 STAFF REPORT --PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 23,1993 UP 93-O1 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Richard Henry, R. Henry for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of an existing accessory building as an additional living unit on property located at 423 Castro Court in a R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Adopt a Resolution incorporating the attached findings, approving the Use Permit allowing a secondary living unit, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. *Environmental Determination: This item is Categorically Exempt under CEQA, therefore no environmental action is necessary. APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a Use Permit to allow an additional living unit on property located at 423 Castro Court. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on Castro Court at the end of a cul-de-sac. The property is currently developed with an existing 2,308 square foot single family dwelling with an attached garage and a detached 636 square foot accessory building located on the rear portion of the property. The applicant is proposing to remodel the accessory building to accommodate the secondary living unit. PROJECT DATA Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area: Building Area: Existing Dwelling: Proposed Granny Unit: Total Building Area: Floor Area Ratio: Building Coverage: Landscaping Coverage: Paving Coverage: .30 acre (13,248 sq. ft.) .29 acre (12,780 sq. ft.) 2,308 sq. ft. 636 sq. ft. 2,944 sq. ft. 23% 23% 39% 38% Staff Report -- Planning Commission Meeting of March 23, 1993 UP 93-O1 -- 423 Castro Court -- R. Henry Page 2 ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY Zoe: The property is zoned R-1-6 (Single Family Residential/Minimum lot size 6,000 sq. ft.). The Zoning Ordinance provides for secondary living units with the provision of a Use Permit on lots containing over 12,000 square feet. The proposal is in compliance with development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance in reference to minimum lot size, setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements, open space, and building height. General Plan Consistency: The Land Use Element of the General Plan indicates low density residential uses, less than 6 units per gross acre. Under State law, an additional living unit does not constitute a second dwelling unit on the property and is therefore consistent with the General Plan. DISCUSSTON Site Plan: The site plan indicates a pie shaped lot with the main dwelling oriented toward the street frontage, and the proposed secondary unit located in the rear portion of the lot. Staff is concerned with the amount of paving proposed on the property and recommends a reduction in the amount of paving on the site by adding perimeter landscaping. Elevations: The elevations indicate an existing accessory building with large windows and a new door on the east elevation and one window along the west (rear) elevation. The remodel will also include the addition of a gable element over the doorway supported by wood posts. The building materials are indicated as tan stucco with wood trim around the windows, wood shake shingle for roofing. Architectural Advisor: The Architectural Advisor is recommending that the porch element be enhanced to match the structure and the existing single family dwelling. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Site and Architectural Review Committee reviewed this item at its meeting of March 9, 1993. The Site and Architectural Review Committee was supportive of the request, and recommended review of the porch treatment on the secondary living unit, and a reduction in the pavement area to provide a landscape buffer along the perimeter property lines. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the proposal meets the intent and requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, and that this structure is architecturally compatible with the existing dwelling. Additionally, the proposal is supported by the Site and Staff Report -- Planning Commission Meeting of March 23, 1993 UP 93-O1 -- 423 Castro Court -- R. Henry Page 3 Architectural Review Committee with minor changes to the elevations and site plan. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the Use Permit allowing a additional living unit, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. ~~~ Attachments: 1. Findings 2. Conditions of Approval 3. Applicant's statement 4. Exhibits 5. Location Map Prepared by: Gloria Sciara Planner I Approved by: Tim .Hale Associate Planner gs:lb a:up93-O1 Staff Report -- Planning Commission Meeting of March 23, 1993 UP 93-O1 -- 423 Castro Court -- R. Henry Page 4 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. UP 93-01 ADDRESS: 423 Castro Court APPLICANT: R. Henry P.C. MEETING: March 23, 1993 Findin sg for Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of an existing accessory building as an Additional Living Unit The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. UP 93- 01 for a Use Permit from the City Zoning Ordinance: 1. The subject lot contains a net area of 12,780 square feet. 2. The proposed granny unit complies with the development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance allowing secondary living units. 3. The proposed granny unit will provide additional housing for the applicant's family. 4. The proposed granny unit with recommended modifications is architecturally compatible with the main dwelling. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: 1. The subject lot has an area of 12,000 square feet or more. 2. The unit complies with all yard, building height, distance between buildings, setbacks, and lot coverage standards of the zone in which the property is located. 3. The total gross floor area of the additional living unit is no more than six hundred forty square feet and the unit contains no more than one bedroom. Staff Report -- Planning Commission Meeting of March 23, 1993 UP 93-01 -- 423 Castro Court -- R. Henry Page 5 4. The unit is no more than fourteen feet in height, and only one story. 5. The unit is designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of asingle-family residence, and no entrances are visible from any public street. 6. The property provides four on-site parking spaces. 7. No more than one dwelling unit on the property is to be rented or leased. 8. The proposed project, subject to the conditions imposed, will be consistent with the General Plan, and will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area. 9. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 10. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, wall, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features required in order to integrate said use with uses in the surrounding area. 11. The proposed site is adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate. 12. The proposed use is compatible with the uses in the area. Staff Report -- Planning Commission Meeting of March 23, 1993 UP 93-O1 -- 423 Castro Court -- R. Henry Page 6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. UP 93-O1 SITE ADDRESS: 423 Castro Court APPLICANT: R. Henry PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: March 23, 1993 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. The lead department with which at the applicant will work is identified on each condition. 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. SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN 1. Revised Plans and Elevations: Revised elevations and/or site plan indicating enhanced porch element and reduced paving area on the site plan to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor prior to application for a building permit. (Planning) 2. Permitted Use: Applicant to submit a letter to the Planning Department, satisfactory to the City Attorney, prior to application for building permit, limiting the use of the property as follows: (Planning) a. Not more than one dwelling unit on the property shall be rented or leased. One dwelling unit on the property shall be owner occupied. 3. Approved Project: This approval is for a second dwelling unit located at 423 Castro Court identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 307-17-066. Development shall be substantially as shown on the project materials listed below, except as may be modified by conditions contained herein: (Planning) a. Project drawings for prepared by Richard Henry consisting of three (3) sheets, dated February 1, 1993, by the Planning Department. LANDSCAPING 4. Landscaping: The revised site plan shall indicate landscaping along the perimeter of the property, as recommended by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. (Planning) Staff Report -- Planning Commission Meeting of March 23, 1993 UP 93-01 -- 423 Castro Court -- R. Henry Page 7 STREET/SITE IMPROVEMENTS 5. Parking and Driveways: All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal code. (Planning) 6. Fences: Fencing plan indicating location and height of fencing to be submitted to be indicated on the revised site plan in conjunction with the building permit submittal. (Planning) PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/UTILIT'IES 7. Property Maintenance: The property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. All existing structures shall be secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property (Secrion 11.201 & 11.414, 1985 Ed. Uniform Fire Code). (Fire) 8. Retaining; Walls: Retaining walls at property lines are limited to a height of 15 inches if constructed of wood. (Building) 9. Garbage Collection: Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple family dwellings, and all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. (Fire) PUBLIC SAFETY/WELFARE 10. Noise Levels: Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated in the Noise element of the Campbell General Plan. (Building) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ~ ~'~ 11. Pay a Park Impact Fee of $7,035. ~~,.~ ~,~,, ,~a~`'~~`~ ~~~-- %7~'v`~, 12. Provide three co ies of a radin a~d!'draina a lan to the Buildin~~ivision p g g g P g _ for review. ~,____.- n i~ ~. ~ L~y"t-t~J C..i~i l/l~C~(~~}/~- ~'V'7'-^'.~ /~ 1 G~~.L-G ---+~,~ w - fin,,.-~'y~ ~ / ~~ / ~ ~v,,,,,.,~'evt," yc,R A °~( wo ~f ~ti lL 1,_.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~, ~~ , (J Cam/ ~-~-- C ~-`' I « ~ Attachment #3 Written Statement for Use Permit: Additional Living Unit at 423 Castro Court Campbell, CA 95008 There is an existing structure on the property. The proposed project would change door and window locations, add water, electricity, sewer, and central heating on the inside. It would be a self contained living area. The overall boundaries would only be affected by a weather shelter over the front door extending approximately 3 feet in the front of the unit. The property is large and the structure is not going to pose any change. There is ample parking on the property. There are two covered spaces and at least 4 uncovered places. The entrance to the unit would be shielded from the cul-de-sac by the fence gate. The unit will be used to house the parents of one of the owners of the property. They are an elderly couple who have come to need the help of their children more and more over the past few years. This unit would be their principal residence. They own and operate one auto on a limited basis. Other potential uses of the property are as a residence for our children as they marry and are getting started in life or as a rental unit for supplemental income. e Slaa4S £ m 30 l laa4S 7 C .+ ;) o O ca c. ~ m d ~_ T C' n~ C, G ~' g _ Q Q Q ~ ~ ~N~i~i N ~ -- ~~//~~ VJ £ ~~~~ ~ _ ~~ A • W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ O ~ ~ ~_ U ~ i ~ ~ ¢~~' ~~a ~ t0 I.L 4 ~~$ ~ m~a ~~ 4. ~~~ J £ i g'~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ N t J ~ LL m ; [~ Q1 ~--~ O _ C- LJ ~ z L ' ~ ~! ~ e c O y ~ ,LB'OS ~ 'u$ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~5iv~o~ v ~ ~ N ~~~• ` e ~ O ~ V W V N . ~ ~ A o ~. '~ 14 y 6.r~i ~ ~'a ''•~ qV~ ~"~ rQp+VECCQ ~'•'• II cMV ~ iW ~ .\\ is .a,~b I~ ~ ~' ~_ N R ~ W xa W ll'L£ t g' m V ~ ,~ y ` W L a ~OVf o° ' a.~ ~ V 4 '~ ~«~ ~ ~~~ I 800S6 eiwo~ile0 ~~agdwe0 ~no0 o,~~se0 £Zb A2~N3H d~fldd aNb' a2ib'H~Ib (~e~~ ~Cuue~~) ~iu~ 6uini~ ~euoi~ippd ~o~ a~n~~n~~s 6ui~sixa ~o apea6d~ \/ shays £ 800S6 eiu~o~i~e~ ~~agdwe~ ~no~ a~se~ £Zt~ ~o Z iaayg A2IN3H d~flb'd ONd dbb'H~121 (~e~~ ~Cuuea~) ~iu~ 6uini~ ~euoi~ippy ~o~ a~n~~n~~s 6ui~sixa ~o ape~6d~ ;: N I i OO ~ ~ ~ ~ O O j 3~ LL W ~ E ~ tgp Y m 80BW~~ ~ to C s " ~ U „' c .n U o U e m N ~ ' Q Q N II O) ~p ~ C ~ Nj(o~ C~ 8 ~ 47 ~avv~ ~ j c d O J m ~ ~ slaayg £ 800S6 eiuao~i~e~ ~~agdwe~ 3~no~ o,~3se~ £Zb ~ £ laayg Jl2iN3H b~flbd aNb a?~bH~121 (~e~~ ~Cuue~~) 3~u~ 6uini~ ~euoi~ippd ~o~ a~n~~n~~s 6ui~sixa ~0 ape~6d~ ~s~~€ DS E /t ~ Z O F ~~ W ~ W O ~2 N `.' r Q n - - v ~ ~ ~%~~ \ ~ ~ C ~ ; ~, ~ - F ~~; ~ %' ~ ~ ~- ~ ~, J ~\ ~~ ~'~ \~~. ~~~ ,, Z 0 F ~" W WO CN y ... W J p Z F ~F J W W3 a. v r. Y '~ ,\ ~ I I l i Attachment #5 J ~ ~\ _=AVE. - HAMI ETON 2 7 0/ 3 4 i2~5 I/ 5 423 Castro Court LATIMER AVE. 2 5 ° /' o UP 93-01 SCHOOL N N Iber:roe Iii/22 ~ / ~ ~ h _ Q „~\~ O~ ~ v ~ ' q F' - .. N ,e ,`. P dos a s6,, ~~~^ a`p~ 9 `/w ~ v )L Cgli.. _ 4 ~IlOritO 'o 78/31 IISI / I 349/25 I 0 'L O~. \ Z 154/3 9 ; ~ a ~, ~ D ~ < '~ ~' ~ ~fl10r10 W \ X52/42 c ' ~ 7/36 O c ~~• M ~ m 'Q` e 6 6 s SHOPPING ~o CENTER ~,O r0 er0 Or i 3 g/ 5 6 J3 46 12746 1,56/ 2 p 3 33/46 O~ . t0~ 2~A 6 ! 25 :, ~ Q ~ - ~- ~ ", ;.+ ~ 305/ 'n ~-, syrt 65~"7 138/43 215/02 ~ 0 74/i2 Kim C Z Q 414 7 ~i CITY OF CA~ViPBELL 7 0 NORTH FIRST S T R E E T CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008 (408) 866-2100 FAX # (408) 379-2572 department: Planning Mr. Richard Henry 423 Castro Court Campbell, CA 95008 March 25,1993 RE~EIVE® MAR 2 5 1993 Re: UP 93-O1 -- 423 Castro Court Dear Mr. Henry: Public WorkslEngineerinq Please be advised that the Planning Commission at its meeting of March 23, 1993, adopted Resolution No. 2844, approving your request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an additional living unit located on the above referenced property. This approval is effective ten days following the Planning Commission's action, and is subject to the conditions provided in the enclosed resolution. An appeal of this decision, in whole or in part, may be filed within ten days from the date of the Planning Commission's action, pursuant to Section 21.80.020 and 21.08.030 of the Campbell Municipal Code. If you should have any questions regarding the appeal process or the Conditions of Approval, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, r-, Gloria Sciara Planner I Enclosures: 1. Resolution No. 2844 2. Approved plans cc: Fire Department Building Division Engineering Division RESOLUTION NO. 2844 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL LIVING UNIT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 423 CASTRO COURT IN A R-1-6 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. FILE NO. UP 93-01 After notification and public hearing as specified by law on the application of Mr. Richard Henry for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow an additional living unit on property located at 423 Castro Court in a R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District, as per the application filed in the Planning Department on February 1, 1993; and, after presentation by the City Staff, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. UP 93-O1: 1. The subject lot contains a net area of 12,780 square feet. 2. The proposed granny unit complies with the development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance allowing secondary living units. 3. The proposed granny unit will provide additional housing for the applicant's family. 4. The proposed granny unit with recommended modifications is architecturally compatible with the main dwelling. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that: 1. The subject lot has an area of 12,000 square feet or more. 2. The unit complies with all yard, building height, distance between buildings, setbacks, and lot coverage standards of the zone in which the property is located. 3. The total gross floor area of the additional living unit is no more than six hundred forty square feet and the unit contains no more than one bedroom. 4. The unit is no more than fourteen feet in height, and only one story. Resolution No. 2844 Page 2 UP 93-O1 -- 423 Castro Court -- R. Henry Adopted on March 23,1993 5. The unit is designed so that the appearance of the building remains that of asingle-family residence, and no entrances are visible from any public street. 6. The property provides four on-site parking spaces. 7. No more than one dwelling unit on the property is to be rented or leased. 8. The proposed project, subject to the conditions imposed, will be consistent with the General Plan, and will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area. 9. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. 10. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, wall, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features required in order to integrate said use with uses in the surrounding area. 11. The proposed site is adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate. 12. The proposed use is compatible with the uses in the area. Approval is effective ten days after decision of approval of the Planning Commission, unless an appeal is filed. The applicant is notified as part of this application that he is required to comply with the following Conditions of Approval: SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN 1. Revised Plans and Elevations: Revised elevations and/or site plan indicating enhanced porch element and reduced paving area on the site plan to be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the Planning Director upon recommendation of the Architectural Advisor prior to application for a building permit. (Planning) 2. Permitted Use: Applicant to submit a letter to the Planning Department, Resolution No. 2844 Page 3 UP 93-O1 -- 423 Castro Court -- R. Henry Adopted on March 23, 1993 satisfactory to the City Attorney, prior to application for building permit, limiting the use of the property as follows: (Planning) a. Not more than one dwelling unit on the property shall be rented or leased. ,One dwelling unit on the property shall be owner occupied. 3. Approved Project: This approval is for a second dwelling unit located at 423 Castro Court identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 307-17-066. Development shall be substantially as shown on the project materials listed below, except as may be modified by conditions contained herein: (Planning) a. Project drawings for prepared by Richard Henry consisting of three (3) sheets, dated February 1, 1993, by the Planning Department. LANDSCAPING 4. Landscaping: The revised site plan shall indicate landscaping along the perimeter of the property, as recommended by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. (Planning) STREET/SITE IMPROVEMENTS 5. Parking and Driveways: All parking and driveway areas to be developed in compliance with Chapter 21.50 of the Campbell Municipal code. (Planning) 6. Fences: Fencing plan indicating location and height of fencing to be submitted to be indicated on the revised site plan in conjunction with the building permit submittal. (Planning) PROPERTY MANAGEMENT/UTILITIES 7. Property Maintenance: The property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris and weeds, until the time that actual construction commences. All existing structures shall be secured by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property (Section 11.201 & 11.414, 1985 Ed. Uniform Fire Code). (Fire) 8. Retaining Walls: Retaining walls at property lines are limited to a height of 15 inches if constructed of wood. (Building) 9. Garbage Collection: Ordinance No. 782 of the Campbell Municipal Code stipulates that any contract for the collection and disposal of refuse, Resolution No. 2844 Page 4 UP 93-O1 -- 423 Castro Court -- R. Henry Adopted on March 23, 1993 garbage, wet garbage and rubbish produced within the limits of the City of Campbell shall be made with Green Valley Disposal Company. This requirement applies to all single-family dwellings, multiple family dwellings, and all commercial, business, industrial, manufacturing, and construction establishments. (Fire) PUBLIC SAFETY /WELFARE 10. Noise Levels: Noise levels for the interior of residential units shall comply with minimum State (Title 25) and local standards as indicated in the Noise element of the Campbell General Plan. (Building) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 11. Pay a Park Impact Fee of $7,035. 12. Provide three copies of a grading and drainage plan to the Building Division for review. Further, the applicant is notified as part of this application that he is required to comply with all applicable Codes and Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California which pertain to this development and are not herein specified. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Fox, Perrine, Akridge, Lindstrom, Meyer- Kennedy. Wilkinson, Alne NOES ABSEP ATTE~ Commissioners: None \ - r / ( ~ \ ~ ~ HAMILTON AVE. ' - 2 7 0 / 3 4 I2 i5 i / G 423 Castro Court LATIMER AVE. 254/'0 UP s3-ol SCHOOL N i ii/22 N ~ Iber:to / ti / h ~^ ~ Q ~ I \ ,~ ' _ o F' Q ~ c ,q ~ ~F _ \\ 1~ ~0 o /~ °o , ~ ~ ~ ° N ~---- - ~o .~ ~~ ~~~ _ - O P P .~ o a 6 ;'.fi'~' f ~ ~ 0 \~ IM L 0 a ~ I ~~~ ~P 78/31 115 '' ~~ ~O~ 9 C~~ ~ 349/25) i v of 0 i s c~ 9 Q~' \ ~ ti Z ~ 54/3 9 3 ~ D Q to a~ ' ~. < ~ :. W O~tOr10 F ~ ''o \~ 15 2/42 c O 'L 0 ~ \ ~ 17/36 o c L t 'Q ~'~ 0 o 0 co 6 6 SHOPPING ~ \ \ \ ~ o t CENTER ~ a ~~ `p~~ Lp fa er0 ~ f 13 8 / 5 6 J` 73 461,56/ 122 46 / ~ y ~`-__~~/ G `~o ~ 3 33/'46 0~ Vi or i to ~o Q 246 /25 O 94 /6 o ~ ~ C,4M C J 3052 'n P eE 4 l< <; AVE Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on March 23, 1993, , ~ adopted Resolution No. 2844, - ~i p ,~ ~ ~ approving UP 93-01 - - (7-0-0) - ~Vh~t 4 3/ 2 9 - ~ Opd Ln v O v 45 /3 2 ;o _ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ! ~ ~ hitwood 'a 3 J, _ ; ~ ~ - IIH2 /91 ~ '25b/!3 ~ ~ y 1 £ 800S6 eiuao~ile0 Ilagduae0 ~ano0 oa~se0 £~ aus Jl2JN3H `d1(ldd aNb' a21dH~ (~~I~ ~Cuu~a~) ~iu~ 6uini~ leuoi~ippd ao~ aan~~na~s 6ui~sixa ~o apea6~ :-~ CC t N ~ ~ ~~r~ y o ^ ^ W N ~ N L Q. = U ~ U J C _ ~_ ~ " C.^. O L /\ _ cic = ~- w Z ~ O ~ -~ U ~ +~ ~ ~' . O W J W ?- to ~ . F-- \ ~~ ~ ~ V m U \ cL~T3 > zm ~ ~ ~ ~ \ • ~ o ~= O Q w ' O ~ O U ~ Q m C Q ~ ---- C e Q V J ~Lg~~s ~ V `. '+_+ N C `~ : ~' r d a '~ ,~\\ ~ \ ' ~,' ~~ ,~` ,`\'~ Q w Y U W Q W L_ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ a ~ ~ ,~ ca D) ~ 3 w p 1-r f~/f '~ ~ a° °~' ~~ cv w ~ ~ 'x P L ~ 47 ~ C c ~Q~~ ri ~ n ~ V M ~ N ~ N p M Q 'q ~~jj cp N~V N ~ ~j N ~ N~lOQI a.~.~._ ~;~~C Q ~ ~ A`) W • Z $~ O ms ~ 7 M ~ q i ~(y] " ~~ 0 i 8 ~° g ~_ ~S~ ~ ~'~ pg ~a a ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~S c a ro ~ m°~a`d .. ~S ~ e gq C,c$ Q B g~ ~ ~ 9a OIC ~j -"~N aa p ~mJ6. Q ~~ S C7~ ~~ ~ LL. m ~ W3 t ~~ O y ~ C _ ~ C ~ ~ ~' o - v ~ •~ O a~+ ~ +~ C H y ~ U . C ~ a~ •~ G.