Variance - 2009Community Development Department
May 13, 2009
Mr. John Rees
1350 Abbott Avenue
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: PLN2009-38 - 1350 Abbott Avenue -Variance
Dear Applicant:
Please be advised that at its meeting of May 12, 2009; the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 3944 granting a Variance to allow two as-built accessory structures (a 120
square foot Japanese Tea Structure and a 56.25 square foot shed) located in the front half
of the above referenced property.
This action is effective in ten calendar days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk by
5 p.m. on Friday, May 22, 2009. The time within which judicial review of this action must be
sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, unless
another statute (such as California Government Code Section 65009 or some other
applicable provision) sets forth a more specific time period.
Please sign the acknowledgement on page 2 of the Resolution 3944 and return it to the
Planning Division, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008, within 30 days. If you have any
questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2140.
Sincerely,
Steve Prosser
Associate Planner
cc Ciddy Wordell, Acting Principal Planner
Ed Arango, Associate Engineer
Frank Mills, Senior Building Inspector
Chris Veargason, Deputy Fire Marshall II
RESOLUTION NO. 3944
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CAMPBELL GRANTING A VARIANCE (PLN2009-38)
TO ALLOW TWO AS-BUILT ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (A 120
SQUARE FOOT JAPANESE TEA STRUCTURE AND A 56.25
SQUARE FOOT SHED) LOCATED IN THE FRONT HALF OF THE
SUBJECT PARCEL ON PROPERTY OWNED BY MR. JOHN REES
LOCATED AT 1350 ABBOTT AVENUE IN AN R-1-10 (SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT. APPLICATION OF
MR. JOHN REES. FILE NO.: PLN2009-38.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as
follows with respect to application PLN2009-38:
1. The proposed project consists of two as-built accessory structures located on the front
half of the subject property.
2. The proposed lot coverage is 19.6%. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the proposed
project is .20, where a maximum of .45 is allowable.
3. The proposed project would require approval of a Variance to allow the two accessory
structures to remain in the front half of the subject parcel.
4. There are no alternative locations on the subject parcel that could accommodate the
accessory structures and meet the required setbacks and site development standards.
5. The subject property is developed comparably with other residential properties located
in this neighborhood and therefore, there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (i.e. size, shape,
topography) which do not apply generally to other properties located in this
neighborhood and classified in the same Zoning District.
6. In general, the granting of the requested Variance would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the area by allowing a portion of a driveway apron in the public right-of-way and
resulting in a 33 foot pavement section for the driveway.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and
concludes that:
1. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s) would
result in a practical difficulty inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Code.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3944
PLN2009-38 - 1350 Abbott Avenue -Variance
Page 2
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
subject property (i.e. size, shape, topography) which do not apply generally to other
properties classified in the same zoning district.
3. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s) would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified
in the same zoning district.
4. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district.
5. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the area.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission grants a Variance
(PLN2009-38) to allow two as-built accessory structures (a 120 square foot Japanese Tea
Structure and a 56.25 square foot shed) located in the front half of the subject parcel on
property located at 1350 Abbott Avenue in an R-1-10 (Single Family Residential) Zoning
District.
Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works
Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance
with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances,
laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review.
Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all
applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that
pertain to this development and are not herein specified.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planningt Division:
Declaration of Acceptance of All Conditions: Within thirty (30) days of Planning
Commission approval, the applicant shall sign the final, approved set of Conditions of
Approval. Until said Conditions are signed, the proposed Use Permit shall not be valid
for any permits sought from the City.
Acknowledged ~
John
nt
2. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Variance (PLN2009-38) to allow two as-
built accessory structures to remain located within the front half of the subject property.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3944
PLN2009-38 - 1350 Abbott Avenue -Variance
Page 3
The project shall substantially conform to the project plans and project description
received by the Planning Division on March 26, 2009, except as may be modified by the
Conditions of Approval contained herein.
3. Setbacks: The 56.25 square foot accessory structure shed shall be relocated to meet
the minimum side yard setback for an accessory structure within the San Tomas Area
Neighborhood Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of May, 2009, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Alderete, Ebner, Gairaud, Gibbons and Roseberry
Alster and Rocha
None
ATTEST:
OF • CqM~
V ~r
a o CITY OF CAMPBELL 'PLANNING COMMISSION
s~ ~~ Staff Report • May 12, 2009
•~RCHAR~,
ITEM NO. 2
PLN2009-38 Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. John Rees for a
Rees, J. Variance to allow two as-built accessory structures located in the front
half of the subject parcel (120 square foot Japanese Tea Structure
and a 56.25 square foot shed) on property owned by Mr. John Rees
located at 1350 Abbott Avenue in an R-1-10 (Single Family
Residential) Zoning District. Staff is recommending that this project
be deemed Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Adopt a Resolution, incorporating the attached findings, denying a Variance allowing
two as-built accessory structures to remain within the front half of the project site.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this project is Categorically
Exempt under Section 15303(c), of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
pertaining to New Construction of Small Structures.
PROJECT DATA
Net Lot Area: 11,325 s.f.
Site Utilization
Proposed Building Coverage
Paving Coverage:
Landscaping Coverage:
2,221 s.f. (19.6%)
2,730 s.f. (24.1 %)
6,374 s.f. (56.3 %)
Floor area ratio (FAR):
Allowable:
Proposed:
Parking provided:
Parking required:
45 maximum
20
4 spaces (2 at garage and 2 at driveway)
2 spaces (1 covered parking space and
1 uncovered)
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 2009
PLN2009-38 ~ 1350 Abbot Avenue Page 2 of 7
The property is surrounded by the following uses:
North: Single-family Residential
South: Single-family Residential
West: Single-family Residential
East: Single-family Residential
LEGAL AUTHORITY
California Government Code Sections 65900-65909.5 specify the basic rules under
which general law cities may consider variance proposals. Section 65906 of the
Government Code allows that a Variance may be granted when:
1. There is a specific physical circumstance that distinguishes the project site from
its surroundings; and,
2. The unique circumstance would create an unnecessary hardship for the
applicant if the usual zoning standards are imposed.
Variances are limited to those situations where the peculiar physical characteristics of a
site make it difficult to develop under standard regulations. A variance should only be
granted to bring the disadvantaged property up to a level of use enjoyed by nearby
properties in the same zone. Additionally, the courts have found that financial hardship,
community benefit, or the worthiness of the project should not be a consideration in
determining whether to approve or deny a variance (Orinda Association v. Board of
Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145).
BACKGROUND
On January 5, 2009, the City of Campbell Code Enforcement Officer received a
complaint regarding construction noise occurring at the subject property. The Code
Enforcement Officer investigated the complaint and verified that a 120 square foot
accessory structure was under construction within the front half of the subject property
in violation of Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.36.020. The property owner was
advised of the violation and was advised to speak with the planning staff. Although the
placement of an accessory structure on the subject property must comply with the
minimum setback requirements, maximum lot coverage requirements, and the
restriction limiting accessory structures to the rear half of the lot and to the side or rear
of the main residence, there is no mandatory planning review process or building permit
required per the California Building Code for an accessory structure that is 120 square
feet or less in size in the San Tomas Area Plan or within the Campbell Municipal Code.
City planning staff spoke with the property owner and discussed his options, including
relocating the structure on the property in conformance with the current regulations. The
property owner was not interested in relocating the structure and requested information
on how to get permission from the city to keep the structure in its current location. The
property owner was advised that he had the option of applying for a Variance, but that
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 2009
PLN2009-38 ~ 1350 Abbot Avenue Page 3 of 7
city staff would more than likely not support a Variance for this situation as staff felt that
all of the five findings could not be met.
PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting the approval of a variance to allow two as-built detached
accessory structures (Japanese tea structure and a shed) to remain located in the front
half of the subject property contrary to Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.36.020,
which requires all accessory structures to be located in the rear half of the lot and
located to the side or rear of the main structure (reference Attachment 4, Applicant's
Written Statement).
The applicant supports his request for the following reasons:
1. The property has a unique layout based on the location of the existing residential
structure;
2. The as-built structures cannot be seen from the street as they are located behind
a 11 foot tall hedge (reference Attachments 5 & 6, Site Plan and Site
Photographs); and,
3. Other structures within the neighborhood are not within the code regulations.
PROJECT SITE
The subject property is located on the east side of Abbott Avenue between Pollard
Road and Hacienda Avenue (reference Attachment 9, Location Map). The property is
located within the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan (STANP).
The site is developed with a single story residence of 2,057 square feet that covers
approximately 14.6 percent of the lot. The proposed accessory structures include an
additional 176.25 square feet, resulting in a building area of 1,829.25 square feet with
16.1 percent lot coverage.
The applicant's property was the subject of a Tentative Parcel Map on April 25, 1978
(PM78-07), which approved creation of two lots, 1340 Abbott Avenue and 1350 Abbott
Avenue. The original layout of the parcel included the construction of the main
residence centered between the north and south property line and approximately 80
feet from the public street. The placement of the residential structure in this manner
created a large front yard are, but restricted development along the east property line
(the rear yard area resulting from the 1978 lot split). The development seen on the
subject property is consistent with other deep properties found in the San Tomas Area,
such as the parcels found on Westmont Avenue where property owners sacrificed rear
yard areas for larger front yards.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 2009
PLN2009-38 ~ 1350 Abbot Avenue Page 4 of 7
ANALYSIS
General Plan Designation:
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Low Density Residential
(less than 3.5 units per gross acre). No change to the project density is proposed.
Zoning Designation:
The Zoning Designation for the project site is R-1-10 (Single-Family Residential) and
subject to the regulations set forth in the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan. As
specified in the STANP under Section A of the Land Use Policies: Relationship to
Municipal Code Site, Development standards stated in Title 21 of the Campbell
Municipal Code that are not specified in the STANP shall remain applicable. Therefore
the prohibition of accessory structures within the front half of the subject property and
Variance authority is regulated through the Campbell Municipal Code and the side
setback violation of the 56.25 square foot accessory structure is regulated through the
STANP.
Section 21.48.040 of the Campbell Municipal Code requires that the Planning
Commission make five specific findings in order to approve the Variance request. The
five findings, with the applicant's paraphrased supporting statements in italics
(reference Attachment 8, Applicant's Statement of Findings in Support) and staff's
comments in bold are as follows:
1. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s)
would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this Zoning Code;
Because all of the primary buildings are occupying the back 50% of the lot, it is
impossible to add an exterior structure to the property under the given zoning
ordinance being enforced. This creates an unnecessary hardship and is unfair to
the property owner as he cannot develop over 60% of the property even though the
property is large enough for a secondary dwelling unit.
The applicant's property was the subject of a Tentative Parcel Map on April 25,
1978 (PM78-07), approving the creation of two lots, 1340 Abbott Avenue and
1350 Abbott Avenue. The newly created lot consisting of 1350 Abbott Avenue
was conforming at the time of creation. Although the location of the existing
residence created the unique nature of the lot and limits the locations on
which the accessory structure may be moved, staff has modified the
applicant's site plan to show the locations were the accessory structures
would conform to the current regulations. The locations in compliance are
shown as hatched areas on the modified site plan provided (reference
Attachment 7, Alternate Accessory Structure Locations).
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 2009
PLN2009-38 -- 1350 Abbot Avenue Page 5 of 7
2. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s)
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
classified in the same zoning district;
Many of the applicant's neighbors have storage sheds, decorative gazebos and
pool houses built in their yards. With over 11,000 square feet of property, the
applicant believes he should have access to the same amenities. Unlike the
functional accessory structures built around the property, the applicant built a
decorative Japanese Tea Garden with a traditional tea house, native Japanese
plants and trees that cannot be seen from the street and impose no visual
obstruction to neighbors or passersby.
The strict or literal interpretation of the ordinance does not deprive the
applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties classified in
the same Zoning District, as there is an area on the subject site located to the
side of the main structure where the accessory structure could be relocated
in compliance with the current regulation.
3. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
subject property (i.e., size, shape, topography) which do not apply generally to other
properties classified in the same zoning district;
The property was developed prior to the ordinance being put into effect. The homes
surrounding the property are in the same Zoning District are track homes placed in
the center or toward the front of the lots. The subject property is the only home with
this unique configuration. The applicant has not found any additional homes with an
80 foot front setback and a 10-15 rear setback. Therefore, the applicant believes
that his circumstances are indeed exceptional and extraordinary given these facts.
There are no exceptional circumstances related to the size, shape,
topography, etc., of the property. The location of the residential structure on
the rear half of the subject parcel does limit, but does not completely
eliminate, the locations where accessory structures could be placed in
conformance with the current site development regulations.
4. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning
district; and
Because of the nature of the property plan the situation cannot be used as
precedent for any other property variance request and therefore the applicant is not
asking for any special privileges that his neighbors would be in anyway deprived of
any privileges based on the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant believes this is very
obviously illustrated on the site plan.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 2009
PLN2009-38 ~ 1350 Abbot Avenue Page 6 of 7
The placement of the accessory structure in the front half of the subject
property would grant a special privilege inconsistent with the citywide
standards for the placement of accessory structures on the rear half of the
parcel, pursuant to the Municipal Code.
5. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
The structure in question has been meticulously built with all natural materials
including natural oil finishes. It poses no danger to any persons or imposes no
restrictions or danger to any other properties or improvements in the vicinity as it
cannot even be seen from outside the property (reference Attachment 6, Site
Photographs).
The granting of the Variance to allow the as-built accessory structures to
remain located in the front half of the lot (with the Condition of Approval that
the 56 square foot shed meets the minimum side yard setback requirement)
will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
subject property (i.e., size, shape, topography) as defined in the code, which do not
apply generally to other properties classified in the same Zoning District. Although staff
is sympathetic to the applicant's situation, based on the California Government Code
and city ordinance, staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the Variance
request and require the applicant to comply with the current site development
regulations. Although staff agrees with the applicant regarding the quality of the design
and workmanship of the structures, the applicant could relocate the accessory
structures to comply with current site development standards.
SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMMITTEE
The Site and Architectural Review Committee did not review this application in that
accessory structures 120 square feet or less are not subject to the requirement that the
structure be architectural compatible to the main structure and is therefore exempt from
design review.
NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE
Correspondence was received from two neighbors in support of staff's recommendation
to deny the Variance Application (reference Attachment # 9, Neighbor
Correspondence).
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting of May 12, 2009
PLN2009-38 ~ 1350 Abbot Avenue
Page 7 of 7
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
If the Planning Commission finds that a Variance is warranted, staff has provided both
approval findings and recommended Conditions of Approval (reference Attachments 2
& 3, Findings and Conditions of Approval).
Attachments:
1. Findings for Denial of the Variance (PLN2009-38)
2. Findings for Approval of Variance (PLN 2009-38)
3. Conditions of Approval of Variance (PLN209-38)
4. Applicant's Written Statement.
5. Site Plan
6. Site Photographs
7. Alternate Accessory Structure Locations
8. Applicant's Statement of Findings for Approval
9. Neighbor Correspondence
10. Location Map
Prepared by:
~~
L. Prosser, Associate Planner
Reviewed by:
~Q~t d~.a~.O
Ciddy Wordell, ~ferim Principal Planner
Reviewed by:
Kirk inrichs, ommunity Development Director
Attachment #1
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF FILE NO. PLN2009-38
SITE ADDRESS: 1350 Abbott Avenue
APPLICANT: John Rees
DATE: May 12, 2009
Findings for denial of a Variance to allow two as-built accessory structures to remain in
the front half of the subject property at 1350 Abbott Avenue.
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2009-38:
1. The proposed project consists of two as-built accessory structures located on the
front half of the subject property.
2. The proposed lot coverage is 19.6%. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the proposed
project is .20, where a maximum of .45 is allowable.
3. The proposed project would require approval of a Variance to allow the two
accessory structures to remain in the front half of the subject parcel.
4. Alternative locations on the subject parcel could accommodate the accessory
structures and meet the required setbacks and site development standards.
5. Although other buildings in the neighborhood exist with lesser garage setbacks,
these setbacks are nonconforming and were approved in the County's jurisdiction or
under prior Zoning Ordinance provisions. This regulation applies equally to all
surrounding residential properties, thereby requiring conformity with current
regulations.
6. The subject property is comparable in size with other residential properties located
in this neighborhood and therefore, there are no exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (i.e. size, shape,
topography) which do not apply generally to other properties located in this
neighborhood and classified in the same zoning district.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and
concludes that:
1. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s)
would not result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Code.
2. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s)
would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties classified in the same zoning district.
3. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the subject property (i.e. size, shape, topography) which do not apply generally to
other properties classified in the same zoning district.
Findings for Denial of Variance (PLN2006-109) Attachment #1
1124 Bent Drive Page 2 of 2
4. The granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning district.
5. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the area.
Attachment #2
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. PLN2009-38
SITE ADDRESS: 1350 Abbott Avenue
APPLICANT: John Rees
DATE: May 12, 2009
Findings for Approval of a Variance to allow two as-built accessory structures to remain
in the front half of the subject property at 1350 Abbott Avenue.
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2009-38:
1. The proposed project consists of two as-built accessory structures located on the
front half of the subject property.
2. The proposed lot coverage is 19.6%. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of the proposed
project is .20, where a maximum of .45 is allowable.
3. The proposed project would require approval of a Variance to allow the two
accessory structures to remain in the front half of the subject parcel.
4. There are no alternative locations on the subject parcel that could accommodate the
accessory structures and meet the required setbacks and site development
standards.
5. The subject property is developed comparably with other residential properties
located in this neighborhood and therefore, there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (i.e. size, shape,
topography) which do not apply generally to other properties located in this
neighborhood and classified in the same Zoning District.
6. In general, the granting of the requested Variance would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the area by allowing a portion of a driveway apron in the public right-of-way and
resulting in a 33 foot pavement section for the driveway.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and
concludes that:
1. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s)
would result in a practical difficulty inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning
Code.
2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
subject property (i.e. size, shape, topography) which do not apply generally to other
properties classified in the same zoning district.
Findings for Denial of Variance (PLN2006-109) Attachment #2
1124 Bent Drive Page 2 of 2
3. The strict or literal interpretations and enforcement of the specified regulation(s)
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
classified in the same zoning district.
4. The granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zoning
district.
5. The granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the area.
Attachment #3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PLN2009-38
SITE ADDRESS: 1350 Abbott Avenue
APPLICANT: John Rees
DATE: May 12, 2009
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that (s)he 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 the applicant will work is
identified on each condition where necessary. Where approval by the Director of
Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney, or Fire
Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable
conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and
regulations, and accepted engineering practices, for the items under review.
Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that (s)he is required to comply with all
applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that
pertains to this development and are not herein specified:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division:
1. Declaration of Acceptance of All Conditions: Within thirty (30) days of Planning
Commission approval, the applicant shall sign the final, approved set of Conditions
of Approval. Until said Conditions are signed, the proposed Use Permit shall not be
valid for any permits sought from the City.
Acknowledged & Accepted:
John Rees, Applicant
2. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Variance (PLN2009-38) to allow two
as-built accessory structures to remain located within the front half of the subject
property. The project shall substantially conform to the project plans and project
description received by the Planning Division on March 26, 2009, except as may be
modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein.
3. Setbacks: The 56.25 square foot accessory structure shed shall be relocated to
meet the minimum side yard setback for an accessory structure within the San
Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan.
Attachment 4
To The Campbell City Planning Department;
Explanation of Variance Request
The property located at 1350 Abbott Ave. in Campbell California was first developed in 1951 when the
original plot was laid out. At that time the original house that is still there today was built. The garage
was built in what we think was 1969-1970 time frame. As you can see by the detailed "plot plan" both
the house and the garage occupy the rear half of the property only allowing 10 - i5 ft from what has
been deemed the "rear" property line. The set back to the house from the street exceeds 80Ft so I have
a very large "Front" yard that is unusable based on the planning ordinance that has been enforced. This
creates a hardship for me, the owner as I cannot develop the property for my own personnel use other
than installing a very large lawn and garden.
From the letter I received from City Code Enforcement Officer Susan Morgado-Grey I believe that the
ordinance that I am asking for a variance on my property is one that states that "No exterior structures
are to occupy the "Front Half of the Property". I believe I understand this ordinance as is would keep
residents with traditional "track" homes that are usually placed in the center of the property from
building "storage sheds" in their front yards. I on the other hand do not have a "back yard" to build any
structures let alone a traditional Japanese tea house made with all natural materials from our local
Santa Cruz Mountains. Please note that the structure CANNOT BE SEEN FROM THE STREET and has
been built meticulously to code.
There are many structures adjacent to my properties that are not within the code regulations as this is a
transitional neighborhood that is converting from larger Ranchette properties to traditional track
homes. I have purchased the last such property on my street. I only bring this up as precedence for the
traditional nature of my neighborhood that 1 believe should be taken into account when considering
unique variance requests like this one.
I have reviewed this with several other city planners from surrounding cities as I had a retired one
prepare my plot plan and they all have stated that they have not encountered aset-back ordinance like
this one in their careers. I have carefully explained the situation in the five findings. I have also included
many photographs along with the required variance documents. I have incurred a great deal of cost by
requesting this variance and paying for the correct documentation to be prepared. This coupled with
the cost of building what constitutes a "Very Large Piece of Art" shows that I am committed to seeing
my dream come true. It is my intent to pass down this property to my daughter who is now 15 years old
and considers it "Her Home". She actually is learning Japanese and we both have a great interest in
Japanese and Asian art and gardening. It has been a very positive experience for her and we would like
to make the Abbott property a "Nature Park" for us to come home to after long days of work and
school. Seems reasonable0
I purchased the Abbott property from the Kearns family 5 yrs ago and I promised Susan and Hank
Kearns, who are friends of Jane Kennedy our Mayor, that I would not destroy the peaceful home and
property they had meticulously built. I have kept that promise and I believe I should have the support of
my city to continue that process as it is in no way counter to the 5 findings or the benefit to my
neighbors.
I have a very unique property at 1350 Abbott and that is why I bought it. I own another home in
Campbell at the corner of Westmont and San Thomas Aquino that 1 originally acquired as a run-down
mess and improved it to a nice attractive "Craftsmen" type home and I am proud that I made what was
once a eye sore a beautiful and safe home that Campbell and myself can be proud of. I would like to
think as a constituent of the Campbell community that I am helping, not hurting, the process. I would
like to continue to purchase property in the Campbell area although current market conditions are a bit
bleak and would like to know that our city chooses to enforce its policies based on logic and good faith
instead of blindly following the letter of the law. So far my experience with the Campbell planning and
code enforcement folks has been nothing but a very positive one and I am very happy with how helpful
and accessible everyone has been including the personnel call I received from Mayor Kennedy.
Because of the unique nature of my property layout I would like to request a city planner come and view
my property in person. For the Variance fee and all the work I have put into this effort I think it is a fair
thing to ask. Once you see the property it will be obvious what I referred to as making the decision
based on "logic and good faith" and I believe this will be an easy decision.
Please review the "5 Findings" and all the attached paperwork and I look forward to your visit to my
property to see the sight of what I hope to be one of the only Authentic Japanese Tea Gardens in
Campbell. If I am successful with this variance request I would like to invite the City Planning and code
enforcement teams to attend a reception to see what they have assisting in bringing to fruition. 1 believe
you will all be very pleased
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely
John Rees
1350 Abbott Ave
Campbell CA 95008