Resolution 12844CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12844
APPROVING THE APPEAL OF ALEX CHEUNG FOR HING CHEUNG AND
OVERTURNING THE PLANNING BOARD'S DENIAL OF MAJOR DESIGN
REVIEW, DR-96-25 FOR 1096 PARK AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application was made on February 16, 1995 by Alex
Cheung requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a
duplex in the rear yard of an existing single family dwelling at
1096 Park Avenue; and
WHEREAS, Planning Department staff conditionally approved the
Preliminary Design Review, DR-95-8, on September 12, 1995; and
WHEREAS, Design Review approval expired on March 12, 1996,
pursuant to Subsection 30-37.6 of the Alameda Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, Alex Cheung submitted an application for a Building
Permit on April 22, 1996; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Notice was prepared and mailed to Alex Cheung
on April 25, 1996, advising of the need for a new Design Review
application; and
WHEREAS, Alex Cheung submitted a written request, dated April
30, 1996, to find the Design Review still in effect; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director prepared and mailed a written
response to Alex Cheung, dated May 2, 1996, advising of her
inability to extend or reinstate the Design Review application; and
WHEREAS, an appeal was filed by Alex Cheung, the owner of the
property, at 1096 Park Avenue on May 7, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this
application on May 29, 1996 and after examining pertinent maps,
drawings, and documents, denied his appeal; and
WHEREAS, a new application was made on June 12, 1996 by Alex
Cheung requesting Design Review approval for the construction of a
duplex in the rear yard of an existing single family dwelling at
1096 Park Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the application was substantially similar to the
first application; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on July 12,
1996; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Medium Density
Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and
1
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R-4
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District and complies with the 1
unit per 2,000 square feet maximum density of this District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this
application on August 26, 1996 and has examined pertinent maps,
drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing on this matter was continued to
September 30, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a revised parking plan to the
Planning Department on September 23, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a request for the Planning
Board to reopen the public hearing on September 23, 1996; and
WHEREAS, in response to the applicant's request, the Planning
Board reopened the public hearing on September 30, 1996; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearings on this application on August
26, 1996 and September 30, 1996, the Planing Board examined
pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board denied Major Design Review, DR-96-
25, based on the findings in the Planning Board Resolution PB-96-
64; and
WHEREAS, Alex Cheung filed an appeal to the City Council of
the Planning Board action on October 9, 1996; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this appeal
on DeceMber 3, 1996 and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and
documents; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the basis of appeal
filed by Alex Cheung and the letter from Dan Reidy, attorney on
behalf of Alex Cheung; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the applicant acted in
substantial reliance on the September 12, 1995 approval, including
his family completing their plans to relocate from Hong Kong; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this project should not
be subject to the new infill guidelines because the project
received prior approval, the applicant has substantially relied on
the approval, and will experience significant hardship if he cannot
proceed with the project as originally approved.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is appropriate that
both existing driveways be maintained to provide parking for the
existing house and parking for the duplex in the rear yard because
2
being 50 feet wide, the lot is particularly wide for this area,
two driveways will share the traffic generated by the project, and
keeping two driveways will provide better privacy for the front
unit ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Alameda hereby grants the appeal and overturns the action
of the Planning Board in their denial of Design Review, DR-96-25
based upon the following findings:
1. The project will have no significant adverse effects on
persons or property in the vicinity because the proposed two
story duplex would be consistent with the pattern of
development within the neighborhood. Although the proposed
duplex would be larger than the existing residence, the scale
of development would be in scale with the accessory uses in
the rear yards on adjacent lots, and is consistent with the
scale and massing of buildings in the neighborhood.
2. As conditioned, the project will be compatible and harmonious
with the design and use of surrounding areas because the
building massing will be in scale with nearby homes and with
the existing dwelling on the property. The building pattern
is consistent with the predominant neighborhood building
pattern. The design of the proposed structure is compatible
and harmonious with the existing structure, by consisting of
similar architectural features, colors and materials.
3. The project is consistent with the City of Alameda Design
Review Guidelines because the massing of the proposed duplex
is consistent with the neighborhood and with the adjacent
buildings and properties.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda hereby approves the appeal and overturns the Planning
Board's denial of Major Design Review, DR-96-25, subject to the
following:
1. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance
with the plans prepared for 1096 Park Avenue by Alex Lhiming
Channe, David K. Brown, and Henry J. Meyer, dated August 6,
1995, revised through August 1, 1996 and hand corrected on
August 5, 1996, consisting of twelve sheets, as shown on the
plans marked "Exhibit A", on file in the office of the City of
Alameda Planning Department, except as modified and subject to
the following conditions:
2. The exterior colors and materials of the addition shall match
the existing residence.
3. The alternative parking plan as shown on a plan titled
Location Map, Site Plan, General Notes, prepared by David K.
3
Brown, PE revised through September 7, 1996, marked Exhibit
"B", on file with the City of Alameda Planning Department is
approved and allows the retention of the existing compact
parking space in the garage in the front house, the
establishment of new four parking spaces in the rear yard, and
the retention of the two existing driveways.
4. The parking and landscape plan shall be in compliance with
Exhibit "A" as revised by the applicant on August 5, 1996 with
the following changes:
a. The parking shall be as authorized by Condition #3.
b. The deck support for the deck attached to the rear of the
original structure shall be relocated if necessary so as
to not impede with any of the proposed parking.
5. As agreed to by the applicant, the following special
requirements apply to parking for the project. These shall be
set out in a recorded agreement which runs with the land,
which document shall be to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director:
a. The garage and the four parking spaces in the rear yard
shall be maintained and accessible at all times for
parking of operable vehicles by residents of the
property. No parking shall be rented or otherwise made
available to people not residing on the property.
b. The residents of the property shall not own more than
five cars in total at any one time. Limitations on car
ownership shall be an express term of any rental
agreement.
c. The property owner shall provide the City with reasonable
access to the property and the interior of the front
house, particularly the garage, to verify compliance with
the agreement, within seven days of receipt of a written
request from the City.
d. The agreement shall include that the property owner shall
be liable for the costs incurred by the City in ensuring
compliance with the agreement where there has been a
violation of these conditions, including the costs of
enforcement by the City staff or the costs of obtaining
legal remedies such as an injunction from a court.
e. All civil and criminal remedies shall be available to
enforce these conditions of approval including but not
limited to the withholding or revoking of any Certificate
of Occupancy or other permit or license which may be
required prior to the occupancy or reoccupancy of any
4
unit on the property.
6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant
shall obtain Final Design Review approval from the Planning
Department. The purpose of this is to ensure that the plans
to be approved for the building permit are consistent with
this approval.
7. The Design Review approval shall terminate six (6) months from
December 3, 1996, unless a building permit is issued or the
applicant applies for and is granted an extension prior to
said expiration.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may prosecuted
more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or
final action on any appeals plus extensions authorized by
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council
of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 3rd
day of December , 1996, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Arnerich, DeWitt, Lucas
and President Appezzato 4.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 4th day of December , 1996.
Diane `'Felsch, CityClerk
City of Alameda