|
Principal Planner Geri Caruso presented the staff report.
Councilmember Hamilton disclosed she spoke with one of the neighbors on the phone about this project.
Councilmember Hamilton stated the staff recommendation and the Planning Commission recommendation are the same with the exception of the General Plan amendment. Councilmember Hamilton inquired whether the General Plan amendment is under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Principal Planner Caruso stated the staff report should state that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the General Plan amendment. Principal Planner Caruso stated it is just a recommendation and Councilmember Hamilton stated that the staff report does not state that the Planning Commission was also recommending denial of the General Plan amendment. Principal Planner Caruso confirmed that the staff report should have included the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Councilmember Howe asked if the existing property currently has an accessory living unit or is eligible for one. Principal Planner Caruso stated there is one main living unit on the site, but not an accessory unit. Principal Planner Caruso stated the lot size as it currently exists is big enough to accommodate an accessory unit.
Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated he does not agree with the staff report which identified that this property could be considered spot zoning. Vice Mayor Spitaleri stated it either is spot zoning or not. Vice Mayor Spitaleri inquired if Council were to approve this application and amendment to the General Plan would it be considered spot zoning. Principal Planner Caruso stated staff would consider this to be spot zoning, but only a court can actually determine if it is spot zoning. Vice Mayor Spitaleri confirmed that it is only staff’s opinion that this would be spot zoning and not a fact. Director of Community Development Hanson Hom stated there are various interpretations on what spot zoning is, but a definitive definition is not available.
Councilmember Chu disclosed that he has received political contributions from the applicant.
Councilmember Chu inquired if by the definition of the term “neighborhood,” is staff using Olive Street within that definition (as opposed to Central). Principal Planner Caruso stated that the new lots would face into the 400 block of Olive, but this corner lot sits at the juncture of four different neighborhood patterns. Councilmember Chu identified that the staff report states the lot sizes are not compatible to the neighborhood; however, the lot sizes are similar to the lot sizes on Central, so staff must be making the conclusion based on a different definition or a more restrictive definition. Principal Planner Caruso stated that the lots on Central are approximately 5,500 square feet, and the small lot that is proposed as part of the subdivision would still be subservient to the lots on Central.
Mayor Lee called a special recess due to an earthquake at 8:04 p.m.
Mayor Lee reconvened the Council meeting at 8:13 p.m.
Mayor Lee inquired as to how R-0 lots can be as small as they are on Kenmore, Wilson and Vine. Principal Planner Caruso stated that the size of R-0 lots in the past was smaller than the 6,000 feet that it is today and those lots would be considered legal non-conforming.
Public hearing opened at 8:16 p.m.
Thomas Sweeney, applicant, stated his goal on this project is to design a house that would fit into the neighborhood context of single family and tie together the Olive and Central streetscapes, which have traditionally been fractured.
Councilmember Swegles inquired if Sweeney had any success with a community outreach. Sweeney stated he has had a number of conversations with the neighbors.
Councilmember Moylan stated he understands Sweeney’s property is 3 percent short of being able to split it in half; however, because there is an existing building on the property, the proposal is not to split the lot in half, but to split more on the sides so that the proposed parcel on the left becomes more and more deficient. Councilmember Moylan stated that Sweeney used more of a back yard setback on the existing lot than would be required; whereas, if the setback was slid to the minimum, another 400 square feet could have been transferred between the two parcels. Sweeney stated that an equal split would be fine.
Councilmember Moylan inquired why there is a fence in place that divides this parcel into two properties. Sweeney stated historically there has been a fence in place on this property and along the way a fence along Olive Avenue, directly adjacent to the Olive Avenue sidewalk, was added. Sweeney stated that this fence continued to the corner of Central Avenue where the sidewalk ended, which then continued northward into the residence. Sweeney stated at the time he acquired the property, there was a fence disguising what is the landscaped portion of the yard and what was the previous owner’s vegetable garden. Sweeney stated he has aerial photographs that the fence did exist previously. Councilmember Moylan confirmed that the neighborhood did not see the fence because it was behind another fence that disguised the entire fence from the street.
Jim Davis stated he, along with many of his neighbors, are against this project as it does not suit the neighborhood. Davis stated he supports both Planning Commission and staff recommendations.
Art Coppel stated he believes subdividing this property could start a trend that the neighborhood would not want. Coppel stated over the last ten years, the Sweeney property has been a sore spot with issues such as weeds not getting mowed, dump trucks on the property, among other issues. Coppel stated Sweeney’s subdivision of the neighborhood has nothing to do with the neighborhood; it is just something Sweeney wants to do for his own gain. Coppel urged Council to deny this request.
John Lau stated he has 152 signed letters of objection to Mr. Sweeney’s proposal. Lau stated Sweeney’s proposal could open up the ability for others to change their zoning, which could completely change the neighborhood. Lau stated he is against this proposal.
Kira Od stated she is against the rezoning. Od stated Sweeney erected the six-foot solid wood fence that divides the parcel up the middle that creates the illusion of two separate properties (one with a house and a small maintained back yard and the other a separate empty, un-maintained lot on Olive). Od stated Sweeney has been keeping a dump on his un-maintained yard for more than 12 years and repeated calls to code enforcement have not stopped him from continuing. Od stated regardless of the fence dividing the property, it is still one property. Od stated she supports a study issue prohibiting installation on private property of publicly visible fencing which creates the illusion of two separate parcels (where in fact there is only one). Od stated she is one of the 152 who submitted a Sweeney’s zoning proposal. Od urged Council to develop jurisdiction against this unusual type of fencing which leads to significant abuse of the property. Od urged Council to support this study issue.
Tim Tegarden stated he is not in favor of splitting the lot, and is in favor of a single family home on a single lot. Tegarden stated he would not have any objections to a larger home on that lot.
Anthony Aveni stated he is against the project. Aveni stated the neighborhood is unique and the neighbors would like to keep it that way. Aveni urged Council not to approve this zoning change.
Jeanne Gonzales stated Sweeney presented the same request to divide his property in 2002 which was denied. Gonzales stated Sweeney was approved to build a mother-in-law unit (which was never built). Gonzales stated this project would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Gonzales stated Sweeney is proposing a 1700 square foot house on a 4,900 square foot lot, which is more than what can be maintained on that lot. Gonzales stated she has many variances on her lot because her driveway is too short. Gonzales stated she suggests that Council vote to deny this proposal.
Councilmember Moylan stated Gonzales is against this project; however, she pointed out that her own lot (across the street from this property) is less than half the size of the Sweeney property. Councilmember Moylan stated if the applicant were allowed to divide his property, his lot would still be larger than Gonzales’s property. Gonzales stated her lot is too small and her house is 1,100 square feet; whereas, Sweeney is proposing a 1,700 square foot home on a small lot similar to hers. Gonzales stated the lot is too small for this size of home. Councilmember Moylan stated if the zoning is not approved this evening, the size of the home would be a moot point.
Councilmember Moylan inquired further as to Gonzales’s concerns and Gonzales explained that she has concerns over traffic and explained that she has been cited numerous times for parking in the area. Gonzales stated another home in the neighborhood will reduce the parking further. Councilmember Moylan confirmed the reason Gonzales was cited for parking in her driveway was because her driveway is too short and she was blocking the sidewalk.
Councilmember Hamilton stated that the decision before Council on this project includes the rezoning, tentative parcel map, and the design; therefore, the comments by Gonzales regarding the size of the home are germane to tonight’s discussion.
Michael Weseloh stated over 150 neighbors are against this rezoning. Weseloh stated he supports the staff recommendation and urged Council to listen to the neighborhood.
Traci Willard stated that not all of the homeowners were able to attend tonight’s Council meeting due to family obligations, but she wished to point out that they did sign opposition letters. Willard stated that Sweeney mentioned several neighbors are in support of dividing his lot, but those neighbors have not signed support letters. Willard would like Council to keep that in mind when they make their decision this evening.
Kirk Willard stated his opposition is over the visual aspect of this project as subdividing this lot will not fit in with the neighborhood.
Jeffrey Jones stated the Sweeney property has always been an eyesore with the building in a continual state of repair being performed and the yard full of weeds. Jones stated he is against approval of this project and urges Council to reject this zoning change.
Sweeney stated he grew up in the neighborhood and went to school across the street from the subject property. Sweeney apologized for any discord that has occurred and stated he will continue to work to mend any issues. Sweeney stated the alternatives that have been looked at over the years have not been well received. Sweeney stated that regarding parking, his property has room to build two-car garages on both sites which will allow four cars to park.
Vice Mayor Spitaleri asked Sweeney to comment on the visual aspects of his property to the neighborhood. Sweeney stated there have been complaints that the City of Sunnyvale has dumped mulch on the site and the dump truck that demolished the roof has been on the property during the demolition. Sweeney stated the property has been continually maintained since he purchased it.
Mayor Lee inquired as to what Sweeney will do with the property if his project is not approved. Sweeney explained the benefits of his project.
Public hearing closed at 8:59 p.m.
MOTION: Councilmember Hamilton moved and Councilmember Chu seconded to approve Alternative 1: Council denies the request to amend the General Plan from Residential Low Density to Low-Medium Density; deny the Rezone of 495 Central Avenue from R-0 to R1-5/PD and deny the Special Development Permit and Tentative Map.
Councilmember Hamilton stated she does not have any issues with Sweeney; rather the issue for her is over the compatibility of this project with the neighborhood development pattern. Councilmember Hamilton stated she is not able to make the findings that would be needed to cut the lot in half.
Councilmember Chu stated in looking at the guidelines, he could not make the findings for splitting the property. Councilmember Chu stated it is not within the character of the neighborhood to split the property.
VOTE: 7-0
|