Loading...
CC Resolution No. 99-328RESOLUTION NO. 99-328 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 4-ASA-99 Recitals On July 19, 1999, the City Council denied the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Henry Adelman and upheld the architectural and site approval granted by the Planning Commission for a second-story addition proposed for a duplex located at 10333 Degas Court in Cupertino (applicants - Mr. and Mrs. Erh-Kong Chieh). On July 29, 1999, the Adelmans, through their attorney, requested a re-consideration pursuant to section 2.08.096 of the City's ordinance code. The hearing was initially set for September 7, 1999 before the City Council. The Adelmans requested a continuance of that hearing. The City Council, on September 7, 1999, with the concurrence of all parties, continued the hearing to the City Council meeting of November 1, 1999. Resolved After all evidence has been presented and arguments by both the applicant and the appellant have been submitted, the City Council hereby determines as follows: 1. The appellants seek to offer the following new evidence, which they allege, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not be presented to the City Council or the Planning Commission at a prior hearing: a) The height of the partially constructed structure would not be reduced two feet as described in the proposal. [Finding of the City Council] The two-foot (actually 1 foot 10") reduction in height was not to be measured from the existing structure but from the originally submitted plans. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council approved a plan which reduced the height of the structure from a 25' high roof to a 23' 2" roof. (See Exhibit A-1 letter of Robert Cowan to the Adelmans dated July 26, 1999, a copy of which is attached hereto). This newly submitted evidence does not affect the City Council's decision in this matter b) The location of the west facing window for bedroom number 2 would not be changed as required by the City Council approval. [Finding of the City Council] The west-facing window for bedroom 2 has been shifted one foot towards the south to be consistent with the drawings approved by the City Council. Said window is also one foot lower compared with the originally submitted drawings. (The upper floor was not raised 1 foot as proposed by the originally submitted plan set.) This newly submitted evidence does not affect the City Council's decision in this matter. Resolution No. 99-328 Page 2 2. The Adelmans allege that the CiW Council failed to provide a fair hearing in the following respects: a) The alleged influence of a partially constructed structure known by the Planning Commission and City Council. [Finding of the City Council] There has been presented by the Adelmans no competent or relevant evidence that any councilmember or planning commissioner improperly considered the existence of the partially constructed second floor in its deliberations. In fact, the Planning Commission required a portion of the existing structure to be reduced. Both the Planning Commission and City Council were properly advised of the necessity to treat the application as a new application without considering the existing structure (See Exhibit B-1 Declaration of Charles T. Kilian). b) The failure of the City Council to apply the so called "35 Percent Rule" to the project requiring that the project not exceed 35 percent of the combined square footage of unit A and one-half of the square footage of the garage, allegedly demonstrates lack of a fair hearing. [Finding of the City Council] The Planning Commission adopted a 50 percent rule, meaning that the floor area of the second story of the "owner" unit couM not exceed 50percent of the combined floor space of the lower floor of the "owner's unit"and ~ of the garage. The City Council adopts the Commission's pasition. c) The City Council allegedly failed to conduct its discussion on the appeal by analyzing the evidence and systematically applying the evidence to each required ASA Finding. [Finding of the City Council] The City Council was acting as an appeal body from the decision of the Planning Commission. There is no contention that the Planning Commission's approval was devoid of proper analysis. The City Council only addressed the issues raised in the Adelmans' appeal. The City Council specifically adopted the comments and analysis of the planning department's staff report dated July 19, 1999. (A copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C-1 ) The City Council allegedly abused its discretion by rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence in the following respects: a) The project, at the proposed location, will be detrimental or injurious to the property in the vicinity. [Finding of the City Council] Both the applicant and the Adelmans own duplexes in a duplex zoning district. The zoning district contemplates possible two-story additions with architectural and design review. It is difficult to imagine any two-story addition which would not have some impact upon neighboring properties. Although it is true that section 19.134.080 requires a finding that the proposal will not be detrimental or injurious to property in the area, the Planning Commission and the City Council have always interpreted Resolution No. 99-328 Page this provision as requiring an unreasonable detriment or injury to neighboring properties before an application must be denied. The City Council finds that the proposal is not unreasonably detrimental or injurious to property in the area. b) The project allegedly will cause a reduction in the Adelmans' property values. [Finding of the City Council] The only evidence presented by the Adelmans on this issue was a letter dated May 16, 1999from a person named Sharon Paulson who works at Coldwell Banker in some unnamed capacity. The proffered evidence is incompetent to prove a potential diminution in value allegedly caused by approving the Chieh 's application. Unless Ms. Paalson is a qualified real estate appraiser, her opinion is valueless. On the other hand, city staff have presented studies of properties throughout the city where property values have increased due to the City's allowance of two-story additions. The City Council finds that the present application will not decrease the value of the Adelmans 'property. c) The project allegedly proposes an "abrupt change" in building scale and will result in an "abrupt transition" in height and bulk between new and existing buildings. [Finding of the City Council] The reference to an "abrupt change in building scale" is based upon General Plan Policy 2-25, strategy 5, which pertains to a more gradual transition between low buildings and mid and high rise structures. It is not intended to regulate one and two story duplexes. d) The location and height of the walls allegedly "will not harmonize with adjacent development." [Finding of the City Council] The duplex zoning district does not contain building design criteria. The Planning Commission and the City Council have used the recently amended Single Family Residential zoning ordinance as a guideline with respect to this project. The amended residential ordinance contains design requirements, which are intended to provide greater harmony between new and old houses. With few exceptions, the subject duplex meets or exceeds the $1 design standards, including second story wall offsets and reduced height of second story walls. In addition, there is consistency in building materials between the first and second stories to further harmonize the development with its surroundings. e) The design of the project allegedly will "not protect residents from noise, traffic, light, and visually intrusive effects." (Finding of the City Council) The project incorporates design elements referenced above to reduce the perceived mass of the building and incorporates landscape screening, high window sill heights, bedroom/bathroom reorientation, greater sideyard setbacks, and obscured glass to minimize privacy, noise, and light intrusion. The project does not result in the creation of an additional dwelling but rather increases the living space to accommodate an expanded family. The expansion is consistent with the growing trend to Resolution No. 99-32~ Page 4 construct more living space per dwelling unit. The expansion does not trigger any city requirement for more parking spaces nor will the expansion result in an abnormal increase in vehicular trips. The Institute of Traffic Engineer's manual titled "Trip Generation" 6th Edition, which analyzes numerous traffic studies, find a strong correlation between increased numbers of low density residential dwellings and increased traffic, not increased residential square footage and traffic. It is therefore the decision of the City Council that the original decision of the City's Planning Commission of application 4oASA-99 is sustained and that appellants' appeal and re-consideration requests are denied. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st day of November 1999 by the following vote: VOTE: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL: AYES: Bumett, Chang, Dean, James, Statton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Wally Dean Mayor