REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
File #: 2018-7190
Location: 1441 Norman Drive (APN: 313-14-041)
Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential)
Proposed Project: Appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission denying a DESIGN REVIEW to allow a new two-story, single-family home resulting in 5,480 square feet (3,492 square feet living area, 825 square feet garage, 465 covered patio, and a 698 square feet attached ADU) and (59%) floor area ratio. The FAR without the ADU is 51%. Existing home to be demolished.
Applicant Team2 Architecture + Design, Shilpa Pathare
Owner: Nirmal Sharma Trustee & et al
Appellant: Nirmal Sharma (property owner)
Environmental Review: A Class 3 Categorical Exemption relieves this project from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provisions. Class 3(a) Categorical Exemptions includes construction of one-single family residence in a residential zone.
Project Planner: Teresa Zarrin, (408) 730-7429, tzarrin@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Report
SUMMARY OF COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission considered this item on July 23, 2018 and voted 5-2 to deny the Design Review and provide direction to staff and the applicant where changes should be made. Specific direction was given that the proposed project should be near a 50% FAR (See Planning Commission minutes, Attachment 10).
BACKGROUND
The proposed project, at 59% FAR (floor area ratio), required Planning Commission review because single-family homes with an FAR greater than 45% or 3,600 sq. ft. require approval of Design Review by the Planning Commission. Staff recommended approval of the Design Review stating that the architecture is appropriate for the transitioning Raynor Park neighborhood and the high-quality materials and articulated design reduced the impact of the house on the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission voiced concern that at almost 60% FAR, the project would set a precedent in the neighborhood. Other design options, such as building a basement, are available to provide additional square footage. Dissenting opinions noted that the project meets the code requirements and the quality design reduces the massing and that it would fit the neighborhood. In addition, property is expensive and it is an imposition to restrict what owners can build on their lots (Attachment 10).
Staff and the applicant have discussed how the project could be modified to address concerns of the Planning Commission. The applicant is willing to move the house back an additional five feet, for a 25-foot front yard setback where a minimum 20 feet is required; this modification still provides a large rear yard setback of 32’7” feet where 20 feet minimum is required. Staff finds that this change addresses Planning Commission concerns that the home may appear too large from the street. Proposed revised condition of approval PS-7 requires the applicant to revise the plans to show an additional 5 ft. front setback. The front setback to the front porch column and garage will be 25 ft. instead of 20 ft. in the current plan.
In addition, the applicant has clarified that he will install a solar roof (See Attachment 8, Page A0). The current proposal (not counting the solar roof) indicates 132.5 Build It Green (BIG) points which exceeds the 80-point minimum. Proposed revised condition of approval PS-6 requires updating the BIG checklist to include the solar roof and any other additional sustainable items not included in the current BIG checklist.
APPEAL
Property Owner Appeal and Staff Comment
The property owner appealed the Planning Commission denial (See Attachment 12 - Property Owner Appeal Letter). The following are summaries of the appeal statements followed by staff responses:
1) The 59% FAR includes a back patio which is not a habitable area. Without the patio, the FAR would be about 53%. The appellant cites that neighboring cities such as San Jose and Cupertino do not include covered patios in the FAR.
Staff Response - As per Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) Section 19.12.080. “G”, the floor areas of covered patios count toward the gross floor area of the property. Staff has not verified the floor area policies of neighboring cities.
2) Other high-FAR homes in the neighborhood do not include ADUs. This project is being unfairly penalized for having an ADU. The ADU provides affordable housing for Sunnyvale and a multi-generational family.
Staff Response - Staff does not believe that the Planning Commission was penalizing the project for having an ADU. State law does not exempt newly constructed ADUs from otherwise applicable zoning standards such as FAR. The attached ADU increases the total FAR by about 7.5%. The house without the ADU would be 51.4% FAR, which would still require Planning Commission review. It would be possible to redesign the project to reduce the FAR while retaining an ADU. The ADU conforms to the SMC. Staff notes that there are other high-FAR homes in the neighborhood, some with and some without ADUs. Attachment 13 is a map of the largest homes in the Raynor R-1 neighborhood (indicating living area, gross floor area) and properties with accessory dwelling units.
3) The project on the Planning Commission agenda after their project also had a 59% FAR but was on a smaller lot and did not have an ADU but it was approved. This project is being penalized for having a larger lot.
Staff Response - Each site and neighborhood are factored into the review and decision for design review applications. The referenced application is not comparable due to different site zoning (R-0), substandard lot (5,054 square feet where 6,000 square feet is the minimum); the design review was approved for a 2,963 square-foot house, including garage.
4) Neighbors did not object to the project.
Staff Response
Neighbors’ Comments received prior to Planning Commission decision (See Attachment 11):
• Received 7/23/18 - A comment which expressed the following four concerns:
1) the high FAR could lead to other high FAR projects
2) privacy concerns about the balcony
3) asked for a higher fence and
4) if screening landscaping that could be installed
(Comment was received on 7/23/18 and was provided to the Commissioners prior to the discussion on the item)
The same neighbor submitted a subsequent comment on 7/24/18 after the Planning Commission decision, and later again sent comments in opposition to the house (described below).
• Planning Commission Hearing 7/23/18 - One neighbor spoke and expressed concern about the size of the master bedroom walk-in closet at the public hearing.
Since the Planning Commission hearing nine comment letters have been received (Attachment 11):
• One letter in support with four signatures of Raynor residents
• Five letters in support from Raynor residents
• Two letters in support from residents outside of Raynor area
• One letter in opposition (referenced above) from a Raynor neighbor. The concerns stated were: FAR too high and house is too tall, would like a solid wall on the balcony to protect privacy, would like a taller fence and tall trees.
5) The project is being penalized for providing a dedicated garage space for the ADU. The garage space improves the neighborhood by parking the car inside instead of on the driveway or street.
Staff Response - The project provides a tandem space within the garage. The parking space can be provided outside which would decrease the project FAR and increase the visibility of vehicles. Two covered spaces are required for the main unit, additional parking for the ADU is optional; the applicant has opted to provide covered parking for the ADU.
6) If the City is encouraging affordable ADUs, it should relax the FAR limit to make it easier for property owners to provide an ADU. The project is a reasonable size without the ADU. Some of the high FAR property owners in Raynor Park told the appellant that they did not pursue an ADU because it would have increased the FAR.
7) Staff Response - There are no provisions in the current SMC that allow FAR requirements to be relaxed for ADUs, and there is no expressed maximum FAR for single-family homes; the 45% FAR is a threshold that requires Planning Commission review. There is no requirement to impose affordability restrictions on ADUs.
8) Housing costs are expensive and having an ADU can help defray the cost of the house loan.
Staff Response -A home can be designed to include an ADU without creating a high FAR.
ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS
The City Council recently considered a rezoning request for two parcels in the Raynor neighborhood and during the deliberations there were several comments and questions about neighborhood character. Over twenty years ago when the area was rezoned to
R-1 there was an interest in maintaining the rural character, which may have a different meaning to past and current residents. In the past 15 years, there have been remarks that the neighborhood is in transition. Since 1996, of 190 homes in Raynor Park (zoned R-1), approximately 23% (43 homes) are new or significantly remodeled resulting in a variety of architectural styles (See Attachment 14). Features that help unify architectural styles in Raynor Park include larger front setbacks and mature trees in the front yards. The lack of curb, gutter and sidewalk also unify the neighborhood and maintain its rural character; however, comments were offered at the prior hearing that residents may want a to change the no-sidewalks feature.
The Planning Commission expressed concern about the overall size of the home and provided direction that a house on this lot closer to 50% FAR may be more compatible in this neighborhood. There are 26 homes in the neighborhood with living areas (not counting ADUs, garages and covered patios) greater than 3,300 sq. ft. The range of living areas of these larger homes is from 3,310 sq. ft. to 4,896 sq. ft.; the proposed project has 3,492 sq. ft. of living area (See Attachment 13).
The square feet and FAR for component parts of this project are:
|
Use |
Square Feet |
FAR (%) |
|
Living Area |
3492 |
37.5 |
|
3-car garage |
825 |
9.0 |
|
ADU |
698 |
7.5 |
|
Covered Patio |
465 |
5.0 |
|
Total |
5480 |
59.0 |
Staff finds that architecturally the home does not appear bulky primarily due to greater than minimum second story side yard setbacks, the use of quality building materials and a variety of materials to break the house into design elements, and a well-articulated front facade. Staff discussed the Planning Commission’s design concerns with the applicant who has offered to set the house back an additional 5 feet to further minimize the potential appearance of bulk on the streetscape. Staff also notes that the house is expected to exceed the minimum Green Building program requirement of 80 Building It Green points by targeting 132.5 points (not counting the solar roof).
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impacts other than the normal fees and taxes are expected.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Notice of Public Hearing
• 58 notices of the appeal were mailed to property owners and residents within 300 ft. of the project site
Staff Report
• Posted on the City’s Website
• Provided at the Reference Section of the City’s Public Library
Agenda
• Posted on the City’s official notice bulletin board
• Posted on the City’s Website
Public Comments
• One neighbor in support of the project
• One Sunnyvale resident outside of 300 ft. noticing radius in support of the project
• One neighbor emailed two times opposing the project
• See “APPEAL” section for summary of comments and Attachment 11 for comments
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
2. Grant the appeal and approve the Design Review based on the Findings in Attachment 6 and subject to the Recommended Conditions of Approval as revised since the Planning Commission action (Attachment 7 to this report).
3. Grant the appeal and approve the Design Review with modified conditions.
4. Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Provide direction to staff and the applicant where changes should be made.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternative 2: Grant the appeal and approve the Design Review based on the Findings in Attachment 6 to this report and subject to the Recommended Conditions of Approval, as revised since the Planning Commission action (Attachment 7 to the report).
There are not many single-family homes in Sunnyvale that are over 5,000 square feet, gross floor area; Raynor Park has two. Although the project has a high FAR, staff finds that the increased second story side setbacks and additional front setback, the high-quality materials, and well-articulated architecture are appropriate for the transitioning Raynor Park neighborhood. Staff is supportive of the ADU, the covered parking space provided for the ADU and the covered patio. Staff also notes that the exceptionally high green building ratings could serve as a model for achievement for other new single-family homes.
Staff
Prepared by: Teresa Zarrin, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Andrew Miner, Assistant Director, Community Development
Reviewed by: Trudi Ryan, Director, Community Development
Reviewed by: Teri Silva, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Kent Steffens, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity and Noticing Map
2. Project Data Table
3. Raynor Park (R-1 only) FAR Data Table
4. Raynor Park (R-1 only) High FAR Properties
5. Raynor Park (R-1 only) Homes 27-29 Ft. in Height
6. Recommended Findings
7. Recommended Conditions of Approval
8. Site and Architectural Plans (update for City Council)
Additional Attachments for Report to Council
9. Planning Commission Report 18-0602, 7-23-18
10. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Excerpt, 7-23-18
11. Neighbors’ Comments
12. Property Owner Appeal Letter
13. Largest Homes in the Raynor Park R-1 Zone (by Living Area)
14. New and Substantially Remodeled R-1 Raynor Park Homes