Zone Change-Withdrawn-2000CITY OF CAMPBELL
CAMPBELL, CA.
WARRANT NO.
85220
1(')1. 551 4660
CRC) 1(i)92(i)(.') 1
3.,575.00 REFUND-APP. FEES
T(')(')05887 BERNARD BLACI</BRENDA
REMITTANCE ADVICE- PLEASE DETACH BEFORE BANKING
HOY
PAY
TO
CITY OF CAMPBELL
70 NORTH FIRST STREET
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 95008
THREE THOUSAND~ THREE
CENTS
BERNARD BLACK/BRENDA HOY
1514 CLOUD AVE.
MENLO PARK CA 94025
11-35
VOID AFTER 90 DAYS
t2 tO
AMOUNT
BANK OF AMERICA WARRANT NO.
CAMPBELL OFFICE
,25 E. CAMPBELL AVE. 8~20
CAMPBELL. CA. 95008
DATE 02/06/01 8522(i)
****'3~575.00.*
HUNDRED SEVENTY
FIVE DOLLARS & ZERO
SIGNA~RE
,'08 S 2
I: ~, ~ ~,OOO 3 5P, I:
-3,,,,RD i~OO,'
Terry Martin Associates, A.I.A.
Commercial ° Residential .Architecture
45 East Main Street Suite B
Los Gatos, California 95030
408.395.8016, Fax 408.395.5732
January 9, 2001
City of Campbell
Community Development Dpt.
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Attention: Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner
RE:
1360 Harriet Avenue, Campbell
PLN2000-70
This letter is to formally withdraw our application with the City of Campbell,
Community Development Planning Department for the property located at
1360 Harriet Avenue, Campbell, California, 95008.
Sincerely,
Terry Martin
Project Architect
Cc:
Bernard Black & Brenda Hoy
1314 Cloud Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
TE~RY MARTIN ARCHITECTS
FAX: !.;,~3~ 395.5732 PHONE: (408) 395-~/
Bernard S. Black
Brenda J. Hoy
1314 Cloud Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 854-6574
11 May 2000
City of Campbell
Community Development Department
70 North First St.
Campbell CA 95008-1423
R/e: Lot split petition for 1360 Harriet Ave (APN # 403-18-047)
Members of the Planning Commission:
We own 1360 Harriet Ave (comer of Harriet and Walters), lot No. 47 on City Map No. 403-18.
This property is zoned R-l-9. It has two small houses on it, one with a driveway to Harriett and the
second with a driveway to Walters, separated by a wood fence (photo enclosed). So far as appears
from the street, there are two single-family houses on separate lots there already. In effect, we are
asking you to recognize formally what is already there, while moving the de facto lot line so that the
two lots are about the same size.
The nominal size of our lot is 177.93 x 122.65 ft = 21,823 sq. ft. However, due to a prior 20 ft. street
dedication along Walters Ave., the effective lot size is 177.93 x 102.65 ft. = 18,264 sq. ft. Taking
into account an additional setback that current zoning roles require on Harriet, the "buildable" lot
size is below the 18,000 sq. ft. that we would need for a lot split as of right. We therefore need
Planning Commission approval for a lot split.
We would like to persuade you that a lot split is the best use of this property from the City's
perspective, that the split lots will fit the neighborhood well, and that the alternatives are far worse.
The principal reasons why we believe a lot split is the best alternative are:
· A lot split will permit us to demolish the two old, small, "eyesore" houses now on the property, one
with a side wall only 3 ft. from the property line, and replace them with two new houses that will
enhance the neighborhood and comply with all setback and other requirements, other than the lot
size requirement (and, obviously, the density/acre requirement, since lot size and density are
inversely related).
· Actual density will not change - we will replace two houses with two houses. Lot size balance will
improve, because the current de facto lot split leaves only 5,100 sq. fi. for the smaller of our two
houses.
· For visual appearance from the street, the most important lot dimension is width. Along Walters,
after the lot split, each split lot will be wider than all nearby lots, and wider than 14 of the 17 closest
lots (see the table at the end of this letter)
· Our split lots will also be wider than the lots for two houses now being built on Walters Ave. (lots
72-A and 72-B), which recently received a variance for underwidth lot.
· Our split lots will be as deep as all nearby lots on the same side of Walters; and as deep or deeper
than all nearby lots on the opposite side of Walters.
· Our split lots will be larger than all nearby lots on Walters.
· Along Harriet, our lot 47-A will be wider than all but one of nearby lots on Harriet,and
substantially wider than most (see the table at the end of this letter)
· Our split lots will be wider than all lots on the adjacent street, Maysun Ct.
· Our proposal will result in construction of two houses of roughly 2900 sq. fi each (plus a 2-car
garage). These houses would be similar in size to recent new construction in the area and will
enhance neighborhood property values.
· The lot split will maximize the City's tax revenue.
· Without a lot split, our lot will be BY FAR the widest and largest in the area. It will look like a
double lot, and be out of character for the neighborhood.
· We attach preliminary plans and elevations that demonstrate our intent to build homes that fit into
the existing neighborhood. The design is intended to reflect an architectural style that was common
in Santa Clara County from the early to mid 20th century. We will be completely flexible in meeting
staff preferences for architectural style.
· We are completely flexible in terms of the division line between the two proposed lots, and whether
both houses face Walters or one faces Walters and the other faces Harriet.
It is also important to compare our proposal for a lot split to the available alternatives, which are
undesirable. We have two principal alternatives:
· We can do nothing- leave the two small houses standing, rent them, and hope that property
values will improve in the future. This is financially feasible for us. The combined rental
income for the two houses covers our expenses for mortgage interest, insurance, and taxes.
But this do-nothing approach will do nothing for the City's tax base and will leave two
eyesore houses in place, dragging down the value of nearby houses.
· Our second alternative is to build a single "monster" house on a single lot, which will be
grossly oversized for the neighborhood. Our current lot is 2.5-3 times the size of the nearby
lots on Walters (see the table below). We have buildable area of 15,200 square feet, which
will support a 6,800 sq. ft. building - say a 6,000 sq. ft. house PLUS a 4-car garage. A very
large house will appeal to some affluent buyers, but will not fit the neighborhood and may
offend the neighbors, witness the recent monster house controversy in San Jose.
· The Planning Commission apparently favors replacing one of the two existing houses with
a new house, while leaving the second house standing (it approved such a proposal for the
prior owners). This is neither financially feasible for us nor attractive for the neighborhood.
2
It will leave one eyesore house in place, and will retain the property's current visual
appearance as two separate lots. The retained eyesore house will reduce the value of the new
house that we might build, as well as the values of other nearby houses.
Finally, a strong argument can be made that when a lot has historically had two existing
houses, and can lawfully be subdivided into two R-1 lots, a zoning change that reduces the number
of permitted houses to one constitutes a taking of property without compensation. This is a different
situation than when a lot has only one house on it or has not yet been developed. An argument can
also be made that the City would act in a discriminatory fashion if it rejects our proposal, having
recently approved two underwidth lots on the same street (Walters Ave. lots 72-A and 72-B), which
present a worse visual appearance than our proposal would.
We have devoted considerable effort and expense to pursuing this petition because we
believe strongly that our proposal is best for the City of Campbell and will ultimately be accepted.
We note that although the current planning staff opposes our petition; the former director, Tim
Hurley, while not promising approval, orally agreed with our judgment that a lot split was the best
alternative and encouraged us to pursue this petition.
Respectfully submitted,
Bernard S. Black
Lot Width and Area Comparison
The chart below compares our proposed lots to nearby lots on Walters, Harriet, and Maysun Ct. It
excludes an assumed 20 ft. street and 10 ft. sidewalk setback on Harriet. Our proposed lot 47-A will
appear wider than indicated because the sidewalk setback will not affect visual appearance of width.
Widths to nearest foot, areas to nearest 100 sq. ft. Widths of comer lots include curved comer area.!
Lot Iwidth IArea (sq'ft')
Houses on Walters (in order of increasing distance from our lot)
'our lot 47-A proposed 74 (84 including sidewalk setback) 7,600 (8,600 w. sidewalk setback)
our lot 47-B proposed 74 8,100
48 (directly opposite 47-A) 60 (70 including sidewalk setback) 4,400 (5,100 w. sidwalk setback)
23 (directly opposite 47-B) 70 5,100
24 (adjacent to 47-B) 58 6,000
22 (opposite 24) 70 7,200
78 (_a_dacent to 24) 65 6,400
21 (opposite 78) 50 5,100
79 (adjacent to 78) 55 5,600
~ In our judgment, the best visual appearance would be obtained by extending the existing sidewalk (from lot
100 on Maysun Ct.). This could be achieved with a smaller sidewalk setback. But we will accept whatever setback the
Commission and its staff ask for.
Lot Width Area (sq. ft.)
20 (opposite 79) 76 7,800
26 (adjacent to 79; corner of York) 99 10,100
72-A (opposite 26; variance for narrow lot) 59 9,700
72-B (opposite 26, variance for narrow lot) 59 9,700
11 (across York from 26) 99 10,100
76 (opposite 11) 59 9,100
75 (also opposite 11) 59 9,100
13 (flag lot, adjacent to 12) 15 (flag); 70 (full width)
16 (opposite 13) 52 8,600
Houses on Harriet (in order of increasing distance from our lot)
our Lot 47-A (width along Harriet) 103 7,600 (8,600 w. sidewalk setback)
48 (across Walters) 73 4,400 (5,100 w. sidwalk setback)
100 (adjacent to our lot) 93 7,400
~123 (opposite our lot) 70 11,600
122 (opposite our lot) 71 11,700
83 (adjacent to 123) 114 8,800
49 (adjacent to 48) 30 3,900 (4,200 w. sidewalk setback)
11 (adjacent to 122) 76 9,500
10 (adjacem to 11) 76 9,500
Houses on Maysun Ct.
back of our lot 47-A proposed 74 (84 including sidewalk setback) 7,600 (8,600 w. sidewalk setback)
back of our lot 47-B proposed 74 8,100
100 (adjacent to our lot 47-A) 73 (83 including sidewalk setback) 7,400 (8,300 w. sidewalk setback)
99 (adjacent to our lot 47-B) 73 9,000
98 24 9,000
97 17 9,000
96 17 9,000
95 23 9,000
94 71 9,000
93 74 7,400 (8,300 w. sidewalk setback)
4