REPORT TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Title
File #: 2015-7108
Location: 1130 Prunelle Ct. (APN: 202-12-029)
Zoning: R-1 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District
Proposed Project:
DESIGN REVIEW for demolition of one existing single family home and construction of four two-story single-family homes on four separate lots;
VARIANCE from Sunnyvale Municipal Code Section 19.30.020 for individual lot width of each lot
PARCEL MAP to subdivide one lot into four lots.
Applicant / Owners: California Communities, LLC / Elva V. Marital Trust
Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt, Class 3
Project Planner: Ryan Kuchenig, (408) 730-7431, rkuchenig@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Recommendation: Approve with conditions
Report
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Description of Proposed Project: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing single-family residence with accessory structures and construct four new two-story, single-family residences. The existing 32,159 s.f. lot would be subdivided into four separate lots that would each exceed the minimum 8,000 s.f. as permitted within the R-1 Zoning District. A Parcel Map is required for the subdivision and Design Review is required for the construction of the new residences and to evaluate compliance with development standards and with the Single Family Home Design Techniques. A Variance is also requested to allow less than the required 76’ lot width for the individual lots.
Background
The project had originally been proposed with a rezoning application for the site from R-1 to R-1 /PD. An earlier design had indicated that certain lots would not meet the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. The current site layout allows for each lot to meet the minimum 8,000 s.f.; therefore, the project no longer required a rezoning.
Site Layout: Currently the property maintains its primary frontage off Prunelle Court. A fence currently restricts access from Reinclaud Court. The proposal would subdivide the lot into four lots of roughly the same size (approx.8,000 s.f.). Two lots would maintain their own driveways off Prunelle Court, while two homes share an entrance off Reinclaud Court. Vehicular access would not be provided through the site between the two streets. Easements are proposed to be established for use of the driveways and guest parking areas. Due to lot configuration, a Variance has been requested for individual lot width.
The proposed homes range from approximately 2,851 s.f. to 3,122 s.f. (including garage area) which results in approximately 35% to 39% Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Each home contains 4 to 5 bedrooms and 3 to 4 bathrooms.
The homes are centrally located on each lot and separately meet the required setbacks. Lots 1 & 2 provide greater than the minimum first and second story setbacks, as indicated in the “Project Data Table” (See Attachment 2). The two homes on Lots 3 and 4 would maintain the 15’ minimum combined first story side yard setback, with a minimum of 6’ on one side, as required for the R-1 Zoning district. The second story of these homes would meet the minimum 21’ combined and 9’ for one side. Two detached garages are located towards the north end of lots 2 & 3. Each of these garages maintains 6’ from the side property line and 10’ from the north property line. Due to the unique configuration on the lot, the side yards are interpreted as those that face the side yards of the neighboring lot to the north and to each other within the project. Each of the garages is greater than 20’ from the property lines that face the street.
The location of the second stories of each home were designed such that a greater setback could be provided to buffer the development from one-story development closest to the site to the south and east. The second story of the proposed homes provides a range of 36’ to 62’ 6” setback from the south and 12’ from the east property lines. An existing two-story home is located adjacent to the site to the west on Prunelle Court.
Architecture
The neighborhood contains a mix of architectural styles with the ranch style being the most predominant form. The architectural style of the development utilizes a mostly ranch style with some mid-century elements, including changes in the horizontal and vertical plane of the second stories. The front elevations of each home combines gabled and hip roof form. A combination of grey stucco and tan/brown cedar lap siding, as well as a brick material along the base of the structure is provided. The project includes three layouts for the four homes (See “Project Rendering” in Attachment 5). Due to the lot configuration off separate culs-de-sac, only the fronts of two homes would be readily visible at a given location. The detached garages match the design of the main homes with a similar roof pitch and the use of each of the same materials.
The proposed development meets solar access requirements. Approximately 6% of the one-story portion of the neighboring home on Prunelle Court would be shaded by the home on Lot 1. Within the development, the maximum shade would peak at 9% on Lot 3, caused by the proposed home on Lot 4.
Landscaping: The applicant specifies preliminary landscaping, consisting of a mix hardscape for walkways and vegetation within the front yards of each home. There are no minimum area requirements for landscaping in the R-1 Zoning District. The applicant proposes to enable the new home owners to ability to design the landscaping layout within each of the rear yards. Conditions of Approval require that a final landscaping plan be provided that meets the City’s water efficiency requirements for each newly created lot, prior to building permits. Several healthy large trees were considered as part of the site layout of the project, including oak trees visible from Prunelle Court within Lots 1 and 2. Several large oak and pine trees within rear yards of Lots 1, 3, and 4 are also planned to be preserved. The project includes the removal of 13 trees (mostly fruit trees) on the site. Of these trees, five are considered protected by Municipal Code standards. The project notes a few replacement trees located within the site. Per Condition of Approval BP-7a, the project is required to plant 36” box tree replacement trees for each of the protected trees that are removed. Although several large trees are planned to be preserved on each lot, staff is requiring an additional 36” tree to be planted in the rear yards of Lots 2 & 4 to further improve privacy for the one-story Eichler homes located behind the development (C.O.A. BP-7f).
The project proposes a six foot fence around the perimeter of the development. In addition to a six-foot fence along the south property line, a 2’ retention wall is indicated; resulting in an 8-foot tall fence. Within the development, 6’ fences would be built between the side yards of the newly created properties, as shown on the preliminary landscaping plan.
Parking: Typical of the surrounding development, each home provides side-by-side two-car garages with two uncovered spaces in the driveway. In an attempt to save large trees on the site, detached garages were considered for two units (Lots 2 & 3). This layout allows driveways to be positioned away from the front of the main structures and create a more usable front yard. Two additional uncovered guest spaces are situated parallel to the driveway off Reinclaud Court that serves the two homes (Lots 3 & 4).
Stormwater Management: A preliminary stormwater management plan has been provided for the site. The project will be incorporating bio-retention swales/basins throughout the site to manage stormwater runoff. Prior to building permits, a final Stormwater Management Plan is required, per Conditions of Approval. Conditions of Approval also require that new homeowners maintain these treatment areas through a common agreement.
Expected Impact on the Surrounding Neighborhood: Staff finds that the layout and design of the four new homes are compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The architectural design uses a blend of styles within the area that are similar in scale and form to other nearby two-story homes. The new subdivision would create four similar size lots that meet 8,000 s.f. minimum standard for the zoning district. The development complies with setback requirements and provides increased separation from one-story development adjacent to the south. Existing and required tree plantings will help provide increased privacy to adjacent neighbors on each side.
Tentative Map
Description of Tentative Map: The Tentative Map calls for division of the existing lot into four private ownership lots. A common driveway serves two lots off Reinclaud Court and two separate driveways are provided for the lots closest to Prunelle Court. The shared driveway off Reinclaud will be established through an easement agreement between Lots 3 & 4, instead of a Home Owners Association (HOA). Two additional guest spaces parking spaces are also provided off this driveway.
Easements: The development includes several easements to enable ingress/egress and emergency vehicle access. In addition, an easement for private utility access and storm drain access are also provided. Per Condition of Approval EP-23, the developer is required to execute a maintenance agreement for perpetual maintenance of certain improvements within these easements.
Public Contact: 69 notices were sent to surrounding property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject site in addition to standard noticing practices, including advertisement in the Sunnyvale Sun Newspaper and on-site posting. An outreach meeting was held by the developer on May 20, 2015. Several nearby residents and the current property owner of the project site attended the meeting. Much of the discussion related to the planned landscaping and construction timeline of the project. The immediate neighbor at 1131 Reinclaud Court requested further discussion of the planned fence layout that borders the property with Lot 4. Staff has included Condition of Approval BP-9 to provide a fence agreement with details of an agreeable fence design that borders Lot 4 with this property.
Staff has received five letters noting concerns with the proposed project (See Attachment 6). These letters include privacy concerns from residents of the adjacent Eichler homes along Sheraton Drive. Staff has worked the applicant to increase setbacks in an effort to reduce privacy and visual impacts to the adjacent Eichler neighborhood. The closest two story portion of the development is approximately 36’ away on Lot 2. At this location, there are no second story windows. In addition, no two-story windows facing the south are proposed for the home on Lot 3. The closest windows facing the Eichler development is positioned approximately 41 feet away on Lot 1. A large oak tree that is to be preserved is also positioned on Lot 1 within the rear yard. To buffer the view of each of the homes from the south, staff is requiring the planting of large trees within the rear yards of Lots 2 & 4, where adequate space is provided.
A letter from a resident on Pome Avenue states that the Variance application should be denied and that the proposed lots are inconsistent with the surrounding lot sizes. Staff notes that there are a few lots ranging from approximately 8,500 to 10,000 s.f. in the area; however, most of the closest properties along Saranac Drive and Pome Avenue are comparable in size to the development or are substandard with less than 8,000 s.f. Staff also notes that each of the existing homes along Sheraton Drive adjacent to the site maintain less than the required 76’ lot width.
Environmental Determination: A Categorical Exemption Class 3 (minor subdivisions) relieves this project from CEQA provisions.
FINDINGS
The proposed project is desirable in that the project’s design and architecture conforms with the policies and principles of the Single Family Home Design Techniques.
|
Basic Design Principle |
Comments |
|
2.2.1 Reinforce prevailing neighborhood home orientation and entry patterns |
As with other homes in the vicinity, the proposed residences would provide greater than required setbacks. Similarly to neighborhood, the layout of the homes is offset from one another to add more visual interest. Finding Met |
|
2.2.2 Respect the scale, bulk and character of homes in the adjacent neighborhood. |
The proposed development has been designed to reduce the apparent scale and bulk through building articulation and increased setbacks. The homes are similar in size to other two-story homes within the neighborhood. Finding Met |
|
2.2.3 Design homes to respect their immediate neighbors |
The proposed size and scale of the homes is similar to other nearby two story homes. The site layout provides for increased setback from neighboring one-story homes to the south. Existing trees and required new planting help reduce privacy concerns and soften the visual appearance of the homes. Finding Met |
|
2.2.4 Minimize the visual impacts of parking. |
Due to the cul-de-sac location of the development, parking is situated mostly away from the public street and internal to the site. The project provides additional parking for two guests beyond what is required for the development. Finding Met |
|
2.2.5 Respect the predominant materials and character of front yard landscaping. |
The project will replace existing driveways with a combination of decorative pavers and stamped concrete. New water efficient landscaping is planned with the front yard of each home. Finding Met |
|
2.2.6 Use high quality materials and craftsmanship |
The proposed design uses a combination of high quality materials including stucco, wood siding and brick. Finding Met |
|
2.2.7 Preserve mature landscaping |
The project will preserve many of the healthy mature trees on-site. Finding Met |
In order to approve the Tentative Map the proposed subdivision must be consistent with the general plan. Staff finds that the Tentative Map is in conformance with the General Plan. However, if any of the following findings can be made, the Tentative Map shall be denied.
1) That the subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan.
2) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan.
3) That the site it not physically suitable for the proposed type of development.
4) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
5) That the design of the subdivision or proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
7) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
8) That the map fails to meet or perform one or more requirements or conditions imposed by the “Subdivision Map Act” or by the Municipal Code.
Staff was not able to make any of the following findings and recommends approval of the Tentative Map.
In order to approve the Variance the following findings must be made:
1. Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, or use, including size, shape, topography location or surroundings, the strict application of the ordinance is found to deprive the property owner or privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and within the same zoning district. (Finding Met)
Due to the existing lot configuration off two culs-de-sac, the ability to meet the required lot width, while providing the allowable density is difficult. Cul-de-sac lots are permitted to have 45’ lot width. Through strict application of the ordinance, only two lots could be created on the subject property. The proposed configuration enables the allowable density to be met, while also providing the minimum 8,000 s.f. lots size for the Zoning District.
2. The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district. (Finding Met)
Granting of the Variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare as the proposed development provides increased setbacks to the neighboring development. The resulting lots sizes of the new lots are comparable to surrounding development.
3. Upon granting of the Variance, the intent and purpose of the ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the Variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners within the same zoning district. (Finding Met)
The lot widths of neighboring lots are also substandard in terms of lot width, including similarly zoned lots immediately adjacent to the south. Although less than the required lot width is provided, each lot would have considerable depth (greater than 140 feet). Each of the homes can still be designed to meet the required setbacks and positioned adequately away from established neighboring development.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Design Review, Parcel Map, and Variance subject to the recommended Conditions in Attachment 3.
2. Approve the Design Review, Parcel Map and Variance with modifications.
3. Deny the Design Review, Parcel Map, and Variance
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternative 1. Approve the Design Review, Parcel Map and Variance with recommended Conditions in Attachment 3.
Staff
Prepared by: Ryan Kuchenig, Senior Planner
Approved by: Gerri Caruso, Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity and Noticing Map
2. Project Data Table
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Site and Architectural Plans
5. Project Rendering
6. Comment Letters