REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Title
File #: 2016-7031
Location: 1169 Sesame Drive (APN: 202-07-041)
Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential)
Proposed Project: Appeal of a decision by the Director of Community Development approving a:
DESIGN REVIEW: To allow construction of a new two-story home with an attached garage and basement, resulting in a total floor area of 3,600 square feet (3,200 square feet living area and 400 square feet garage) and a Floor Area Ratio of 32%; and a 6-foot tall fence (5 feet from ground and 6 feet from top of curb) within the front yard, set back approximately 20 feet from the front property line.
Applicant / Owner: Vitaly Eliashberg
Environmental Review: Class I Categorical Exemption
Project Planner: Noren Caliva-Lepe, (408) 730-7659, ncaliva-lepe@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Report
REPORT IN BRIEF
General Plan: Residential Low Density
Existing Site Conditions: One-story single-family home
Surrounding Land Uses
North: One-story single-family home
South: One-story single-family home
East: One-story single-family home
West: One-story single-family home
Issues: Privacy and Aesthetics
Staff Recommendation: Deny the appeal and approve the Design Review with a condition to remove a large second-story window facing the rear yard.
BACKGROUND
Single-family projects not exceeding 45% Floor Area Ratio and 3,600 square feet (such as the proposed project) are subject to a staff-level Design Review. Staff review is also required for front yard fences between 4 and 6 feet in height, as measured from the top of the nearest curb. The applicant submitted a staff-level Design Review application for a new two-story modern house and front yard fence on January 14, 2016. The project site is located in an Eichler home neighborhood.
After several rounds of revisions and receiving public comments for two weeks, staff approved the application on April 11, 2016, with a condition to remove one large second-story window facing the rear yard (see Attachment 10).
Notices of the project were sent to neighbors within 300 feet of the project site, as required by City code. Two neighbors within 300 feet of the subject property submitted appeals (see Attachment 5). The appellants state concerns about the project's compatibility with Eichler Design Guidelines (massing and architectural compatibility) and privacy impacts as the main grounds for appeal.
See Attachment 1 for a map of the vicinity and mailing area for notices.
EXISTING POLICY
Eichler Design Guidelines: The subject property is located within an Eichler District and is subject to the Eichler Design Guidelines. The Guidelines stemmed from a multi-year study for potential Heritage Resource Districts that started in 2007. That study did not result in classifying the Eichler District as a Heritage Resource District, but did result in the preparation of the Eichler Design Guidelines. The general consensus among residents involved in the study was that Eichler-specific design guidelines would assist in guiding the design of additions, exterior modifications, and new homes. During the course of the study, options to impose a one-story restriction were also discussed. It was determined that individual neighborhoods could petition for single-story overlay zone on a case-by-case basis and that it was inappropriate to limit height in the Guidelines. As a result of the study, the City Council adopted the Eichler Design Guidelines in July 2009. These Guidelines were used to review the project and are referenced in this staff report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Class 1 Categorical Exemption relieves this project from the California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines.
DISCUSSION
Present Site Conditions
The subject property is approximately 11,393 square feet in size. The property is currently developed with a 2,445 square foot single-story home (1,944 square feet living area and 501 square feet garage). The existing house is part of an original tract of homes built by Joseph Eichler in the late 1950s and 1960s. An existing 79 square foot storage shed is tucked towards the back of the property.
Description of Proposed Project
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing house and storage shed and construct a new two-story home with an attached garage, resulting in a total floor area of 3,600 square feet (3,200 square feet living area and 400 square feet garage) and a Floor Area Ratio of 32%. A 1,400 square foot uninhabitable (no heating or cooling) basement is also proposed. The Zoning Code excludes basements from floor area measurements, regardless of use.
The project also includes a front yard fence that is 5 feet in height from grade and 6 feet in height from the top of the nearest curb. The proposed fence is set back approximately 20 feet from the front property line. The purpose of the fence is to enclose a portion of the front yard as private open space similar to those on some Eichler homes.
See Attachment 2 for the Data Table of the project.
Development Standards
The proposed project complies with the applicable development standards as set forth in the Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC), such as height, setbacks, vision triangles, lot coverage and parking. The project Data Table is located in Attachment 2.
Height: The proposed two-story house will be approximately 23 feet 10 inches in height, as measured from the top of the nearest curb. The maximum height permitted in SMC Section 19.32.020 is 30 feet. Therefore, the project complies with the code requirements. The use of a flat roof minimizes the proposed height.
Setbacks: The proposed house exceeds most of the minimum setback requirements. For example, the front yard setback for the first floor is 20 feet to the garage and almost 27 feet to the living area, where 20 feet minimum is required in SMC Section 19.34.030. The second floor front setback is 35 feet, where 25 feet minimum is required. In addition, the rear yard setback is almost 77 feet on the first floor and 85 feet on the second floor (balcony projection), where 20 feet minimum is required.
Driveway Vision Triangle: The proposed front yard fence is located opposite of the driveway and will not obstruct the 10-foot driveway vision triangle on the property. In addition, the proposed fence will not obstruct the driveway vision triangle on the neighboring properties.
Architectural Design & Neighborhood Impacts
The proposed architectural design is considered modern, with Eichler elements that relate to the neighboring properties. Staff finds that the proposed architectural design complies with the overall intent of the Eichler Design Guidelines (see Attachment 3). Staff has highlighted several guidelines below.
Guideline 3.7.1 Incorporate a Modernist Style sympathetic to the forms and style of the Eichler homes nearby. The design has a strong horizontal emphasis with butterfly (a-symmetrical) roof forms, wide overhangs and exposed rafter beams, which are common features found in the neighborhood. The proposed wall material is stucco with modernist grid-pattern design.
Guideline 3.7.2 Use building volumes that are compatible with the surrounding Eichler neighborhood. Interior plate heights are less than 10 feet and result in a minimal exterior building height. The front setback on the second floor is 10 feet more than minimum required to help reduce overall massing and draw the attention to the first floor level. The horizontal design emphasis and deeply recessed garage doors help to relate to the neighboring homes.
Guideline 3.3.3 Avoid windows looking into adjacent homes' windows and private outdoor space. The intent of this guideline is to help protect privacy intrusion to adjacent yards and Eichler homes, which contain expanses of windows. No second floor windows are proposed along the side elevations. Second floor windows have been positioned towards the front and rear elevations with greater setbacks. Several of the windows are high sill windows with obscured glass, as shown on the elevations. Staff required one large rear-facing window to be removed, as the window was not needed for egress and was concerning to an adjacent neighbor (see Attachment 8). Second floor balconies along the side and rear elevations are also discouraged in the guidelines. Two balconies are proposed along the front elevation, which pose minimal impacts to neighbors across Sesame Drive. A third balcony is located along the rear elevation, which is set back approximately 85 feet from the rear property line. Staff was very concerned about the location of this balcony at the rear of the home. The balcony is tucked behind first floor roof elements and the applicant added a planter box along one side of the balcony to provide full screening up to 7 feet in height. Line of sight drawings were submitted by the applicant (see Attachment 9), which also show minimal privacy impacts associated with the balcony. With those changes, staff found the rear-facing balcony to be reasonable.
To further reduce overall massing, the project has been designed to also comply with the following Single-Family Home Design Technique:
Design Technique 3.4.A The area of the second floor should not exceed the common standard of the neighborhood. For new second stories in predominately one-story neighborhoods, the second floor area should not exceed 35% on the first floor area (including the garage area).
The neighborhood contains mostly one-story homes; therefore, the project complies by providing second floor that is 35% of the first floor.
APPEAL
Two appeal requests were submitted, one from an adjacent neighbor with an adjoining rear yard located at 662 Torrington Drive, and a second from a neighbor located one block away at 1150 Royal Anne Drive (see Attachment 5). The appeal letters cite concerns with architectural compatibility, massing, and privacy impacts.
The letters also cite an existing two-story house located at 1196 E. Vanderbilt Court, which is a corner lot just south of the subject property within the same block. The house was approved through a staff-level Design Review application in 2011. Staff made the file available to the appellant to review at the counter on April 25, 2016. The appeal letters state that the approved design of the Vanderbilt Court home is inconsistent with the Eichler Design Guidelines, which were in affect at the time of project review. The appellant also asserts that the required two-week neighborhood notification for the Vanderbilt Court project was not conducted during the review process. As part of staff's comments on that application, a letter in the file states that "once the design has been finalized, staff will proceed with the 14 day comment period". After reviewing the project file and noticing records, staff was not able to confirm that notices were sent. Staff has indicated to the appellant that the current proposal was reviewed on its own terms and not in reference to the Vanderbilt home approval. Past approval of a project does not guarantee approval of another similar project. Each project must be evaluated on its individual merits and must be consistent with development standards and design guidelines. As outlined in this staff report, the proposed project complies with development standards and design guidelines.
The appeal letters also note that the neighborhood, which includes the subject property, has filed a petition for a single-story overlay zone. The application was filed on March 22, 2016 and Planning Commission and City Council public hearings are expected for consideration of the rezone in July and August. The proposed two-story project under consideration was filed well before the single-story overlay rezoning request and is subject to current development standards, which allows two stories up to 30 feet in height.
Staff Comment on Appeal
The zoning code allows two-story homes in the neighborhood and the design guidelines include specific guidelines to consider in the review of a two-story home in an Eichler district. Staff finds that the project complies with applicable development standards, such as height, and with the overall intent of the Eichler Design Guidelines. Staff had concerns about the rear deck, and with the addition of the planter box to block views from the deck to the properties to the north, and with the design of the rooflines, staff can support that element of the design. Also, the removal of the large rear-facing window further helps to address privacy. Staff finds the proposed home design will have minimal privacy impacts to the neighbors and respects the style and scale of the neighborhood.
The applicant also submitted a letter in response to the appeal (see Attachment 6). A petition signed by several neighbors is also included in the applicant's letter.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impacts other than normal fees and taxes are expected.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Comment Letters: During the original staff-level Design Review process, staff sent 75 notices to neighbors within 300 feet of the subject property to accept comments from February 26, 2016 to March 10, 2016. During that time, staff received comments from approximately 23 neighbors (see Attachment 11). The majority of the neighbors supported the project, including nine of the ten adjacent property owners. As noted in the letters of support, the applicant met with several neighbors during the process to proactively make modifications to the design to reduce impacts.
As a result of the appeal request, staff has also received 17 additional comments from the neighbors (see Attachment 7).
Notice of Public Hearing, Staff Report and Agenda:
* Published in the Sun newspaper
* Posted on the site
* 75 notices mailed to property owners and residents adjacent to the project site
* Posted on the City of Sunnyvale's Web site
* Provided at the Reference Section of the City of Sunnyvale's Public Library
* Agenda posted on the City's official notice bulletin board
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the Appeal and approve the Design Review with a condition to remove a large second-story window facing the rear yard as included in Attachment 4.
2. Deny the Appeal and approve the Design Review with modified conditions.
3. Approve the Appeal and deny the Design Review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternative 1: Deny the Appeal and approve the Design Review with a condition to remove a large second-story window facing the rear yard as included in Attachment 4.
Staff worked with the applicant on the final design, and specifically regarding privacy concerns, in order to bring it into conformance with the City standards and design guidelines. Removal of the rear window and other elements revised since the initial design has resulted in a project that conforms with the City standards. Although staff had serious concerns with the addition of a rear deck, the final design in conjunction with the roof design will reduce privacy impacts from the deck.
Prepared by: Noren Caliva-Lepe, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gerri Caruso, Principal Planner
Approved by: Andrew Miner, Planning Officer
ATTACHMENTS
1. Public Notice Mailing Map
2. Project Data Table
3. Recommended Findings
4. Recommended Conditions of Approval
5. Letters from Appellants
6. Letter from Applicant
7. Letters from Neighbors
8. Proposed Site and Architectural Plans
9. Line of Sight Drawings
10. Design Review Approval Letter, April 11, 2016
11. Design Review Comment Letters