REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBJECT
Title
File #: 2015-7063
Location: 1268 Townsend Terrace (APN: 202-37-025)
Zoning: R-1.5/PD (Low Medium Density Residential / Planned Development) Zoning District
Proposed Project:
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: for a first and second floor addition of 152 square feet to an existing two-story, single-family residence resulting in a building size of 2,368.5 square feet and 54.9% floor area ratio (FAR). The project also includes the expansion of the front porch.
Applicant / Owner: Flanders Bay Company (applicant) / Tyson Leistiko (owner)
Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt Class 1
Report
REPORT IN BRIEF
General Plan: Residential Low Medium Density (7-14 du/ac)
Existing Site Conditions: Single-family residence
Surrounding Land Uses
North: Single-family residence
South: Single-family residence
East: Single-family residence
West: Single-family residence
Issues: Neighborhood compatibility, Floor Area Ratio
Staff Recommendation: Approve the Special Development Permit with conditions
BACKGROUND
The existing two-story, single-family residence was constructed in 1997 as part of a 24-unit single-family home development by The Building Works/Classic Communities. The existing residence is approximately 2,217square feet with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 51.4%. There are no planning applications related to the subject site since the home was constructed.
The subject development is zoned R-1.5/PD. The R-1.5/PD zoning district was created to allow smaller lots (4,200 square feet minimum) with smaller homes (40% lot coverage and 50% FAR) for a more affordable single-family detached home option. The Planned Development combining district allows site design flexibility.
This Special Development Permit application requires Planning Commission review due to a requested FAR exceeding 45%. The Planning Commission may take into account the proposed architecture, existing neighborhood, and adopted Single Family Home Design Techniques. This applicant is also requesting an addition which exceeds the 50% FAR limitation allowed in the R-1.5/PD zoning district. The Planned Development combining district allows approval of specified deviations to the zoning code including FAR. See Attachment 2 for the Data Table of the project.
Description of Proposed Project
The project is a proposal for first and second story additions totaling 152 square feet to the rear of the existing two-story residence resulting in a building size of 2,369 square feet and a FAR of 54.9%. The addition would accommodate the expansion of the family room on the first floor and the expansion of the master bathroom and closet on the second floor. The existing fireplace and chimney would be removed. The project also includes the expansion of the front covered porch by 58 square feet with an attic storage area above which would only be accessible through a pull down entry from the porch landing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Categorical Exemption Class 1 (minor alterations to existing structure) relieves this project from CEQA provisions.
DISCUSSION
Architecture: The 24-unit development was designed in the California Craftsman Bungalow style with horizontal shipboard lap siding or shake siding, gable roof forms with decorative rafter tails, front porches and masonry bases. The existing architecture of the home is similar to the other homes in the development with horizontal siding exterior and composition shingle roofing material. As proposed, the rear additions would match the existing materials and design of the house.
The front porch would be modified to include craftsman style details with an exposed truss detail at the gable end, tapered columns and a stone column base. The dormer over the garage door would be modified from horizontal siding to cement shake siding. A new dormer with cement shake siding is proposed over the front porch in the area of the proposed storage area. Staff has included a condition to limit the use of the storage space over the front porch (see Attachment 4). The garage door would be modified to a carriage door style garage door and the front door would be modified to a craftsman style door.
Applicable Design Guidelines and Policy Documents: The proposed addition is consistent with the adopted Single Family Home Design Techniques, as it generally maintains the existing shape, form and streetscape. In addition, the privacy impacts are minimal as no new windows are proposed to the second floor. The storage area over the front porch is not proposed to be habitable space. Recommended Findings related to the Single Family Home Design Techniques are located in Attachment 3.
Development Standards
Front Setback: The front setback standard for the subdivision, as approved by the original Special Development Permit, ranges between 18 to 24 feet. The proposed expansion of the front porch would reduce the front setback on the subject property from 21 feet six inches to 17 feet six inches. The deviation of six inches can be considered through the Special Development Permit.
Floor Area Ratio: Since the development was constructed in 1997, approximately seven homes have increased floor area beyond the 50% FAR limitation by creating a loft area within a vaulted ceiling area (>15-foot ceiling height). In those cases, there were minimal changes to the exterior of the house and no increase in the footprint.
It should be noted that when this neighborhood was originally developed, the City did not count vaulted ceiling areas above 15 feet in height as gross floor area or include it in the FAR calculation. In 2009, the Zoning Code definition of "Gross Floor Area" for single-family homes was amended to include areas with a 15-foot ceiling height or greater to be counted twice. With this change in the definition, all of the homes in the development with a vaulted ceiling area in the living room greater than 15 feet would now be calculated with an increased FAR over 50%.
The following table shows the differences in FAR for the original (1993) and the current definition for floor area.
|
1997 original |
2009 current |
Existing house |
47.7% |
51.4% |
Proposed house |
51.2% |
54.9% |
When compared to the FAR of the surrounding neighborhood and other approvals for additions as demonstrated in the table (Attachment 7), the FAR would be comparable to the prevailing patterns of the neighborhood. The project meets the Single Family Home Design Techniques for the exterior design and neighborhood compatibility.
Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impacts other than normal fees and taxes are expected.
Notice of Public Hearing, Staff Report and Agenda
· Published in the Sun newspaper
· Posted on the site
· 94 notices mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site
· Posted on the City of Sunnyvale's website
· Provided at the Reference Section of the City of Sunnyvale's Public Library
· Agenda Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board
Public Contact: One neighbor contacted staff to inquire about the Home Owner's Association review. The applicant has submitted a letter from the Home Owner's Association representatives. (Attachment 6)
Conclusion
Findings and General Plan Goals: Staff was able to make the required Findings based on the justifications for the Design Review and Special Development Permit and Recommended Conditions of Approval (Attachment 4). Recommended Findings and General Plan Goals are located in Attachment 3.
Alternatives
1. Approve the Special Development Permit with the conditions in Attachment 4
2. Approve the Special Development Permit with modified conditions.
3. Deny the Special Development Permit and provide direction to staff and the applicant where changes should be made.
Recommendation
Recommend Alternative 1 in accordance with the Findings in Attachment 3 and Conditions of Approval in Attachment 4.
Prepared by: Momoko Ishijima, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Ryan Kuchenig, Senior Planner
Approved by: Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer
ATTCHMENTS
1. Vicinity and Noticing Map
2. Project Data Table
3. Recommended Findings
4. Recommended Conditions of Approval
5. Site and Architectural Plans
6. Letters from Home Owner's Association and neighbors
7. FAR Comparison