RTC 03-102 Attachment I

2003-0020 - The Riding Group [Applicant] Sunnyvale Community Christian Church [Owner]: Application for related proposals on a 3.96 acre site located at 397 South Mary Avenue in an R-0 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District. (Mitigated Negative Declaration) (APN: 161-39-022) (Also to City Council on March 25, 2003)

• General Plan Amendment from RLO (Residential Low Density) to RLM (Residential Low Medium Density);
• Rezone from R-0 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R1.7/PD (Low Medium Density Residential/Planned Development) Zoning District;
• Special Development Permit to allow development of 35 single family homes, and
• Tentative Map to subdivide two lots into 35 lots and one common lot.

Kelly Diekmann, Project Planner, presented the staff report. Staff corrected page one of the staff report noting that staff recommendation is R-2/PD and clarified Condition of Approval 5b that the average is to be greater than or equal to 10 feet for first story and 15 feet for second story. Staff provided a summary of the proposed project highlighting the use, site layout, architecture, landscaping parking and circulation. Staff presented options of the three possible zoning districts and its benefits for the area to meet the intent of the general plan and the reasons for the recommended planned development designation. He further noted the various deviations. He expressed staff's concerns about the proposed project as R1.7/PD the FAR and affordability component. Therefore, staff could not support the proposed project as submitted. Staff recommended zoning the site to R-2/PD with conditions of approval, limiting the FAR to an average 50% allowing an average unit of 1,870 square feet rather than the proposed 2,400 square feet.

Vice Chair Babcock asked staff if the recommendation for less square feet and lower FAR applies to both R1.7 and R-2. Staff responded yes and added that staff's recommendation R-2 zoning and 50% FAR overall for the site. If the Commission is interested in R1.7, staff recommends 50% for each lot.

Vice Chair Babcock further asked whether the end result of the recommendation could mean a reduction of units overall. Staff said yes.

Comm. Chu asked staff to point out which lots have the 13 and 15 feet front setbacks. Staff responded lots 10, 11 and 12 have reduced front yard setback to 13 feet and it is because of the abnormal construction of the right-of-way.

Comm. Chu commented that there was a recommendation at the study session to shift the parcels for zero lot line to achieve more space. Staff responded that although it is not visible in the design, it functions as a zero lot line.

Comm. Chu asked staff what is the average length of the car because he has concerns about the proposed non-standard parking space being deficient in depth. Staff responded that the standard parking space is 18 feet deep and there is a condition limiting the amount of overhang outside of the parking space to address this concern.

Further, Comm. Chu commented that parcels 22 through 31 have no depth and asked staff whether there is space for parallel parking. Staff responded that there is room for parallel parking; however, the possible number of spaces is not included in the total number of parking provided.

Comm. Satterlee asked staff that if the area is rezoned to R-2/PD could the applicant change the proposed project and develop multi-family or apartment units vs could the project be conditioned to develop the site to only single family development. Ms. Ryan responded that the applicant can change the design through special development permit and the Commission could possibly condition that the zoning district is not effective until the map is final.

Dave Sanders, Treasurer of El Camino Christian Church/owner, gave the goals and mission of the church. He noted that the congregation decided that it is economically advantageous to sell the facility rather than try to make the necessary maintenance requirement. He summarized the partnership with the applicant. He was pleased and applauded the applicant's interest and concerns in the neighborhood. He urged the Commission to support the project as recommended so the church can continue to provide their noble mission to Sunnyvale.

Tom Quaglia, The Riding Group/applicant, stated that he read the staff report and noted that there are some parts that they agree with and some they don’t. He discussed the uniqueness of the site and his consideration of alternatives addressing the variety of the neighborhoods with three distinct frontages. He also discussed the general plan designation, zoning, planned development, density and FAR while quoting the goals of the general plan. He disagreed with the staff analysis and recommendation of R-2/PD. He noted the design, the floor plans and architecture and how the development would be successful similar to two projects in Mountain View and Campbell. He felt confident that the R1.7/PD is appropriate and blends well with the three different neighborhoods. He urged the Commission to support the project as presented as supported by the neighborhood.

Comm. Moylan asked the applicant which he preferred to have the zoning allowing the same design but with BMR requirements or stay with his proposal of R1.7/PD. Mr. Quaglia responded that he would like to stay with R1.7/PD with the proposed design overall as it is appropriate to the site. He stated that he has no interest in developing a townhouse type development to which R-2/PD dictates. He added that a BMR requirement was not considered and that it would be a completely different approach.

Comm. Swegles asked the speaker if the parishioners would have priority in purchasing the units. Mr. Quaglia responded no.

Comm. Swegles further asked Mr. Quaglia what is the retreat room as it appears to be an extravagant layout. He responded that only a desk could fit in the room and that it could be removed if the Commission so chose. He added that it should have been labeled as a nook and that it is not meant to be an extravagant feature.

Vice Chair Babcock asked the applicant that if the site is rezoned to R1.7/PD with 50% FAR, how many units would be eliminated. Mr. Quaglia responded that with R1.7/PD and a 50% FAR for each lot, the houses would be 900 square feet to 1300 square feet living area. Further, Vice Chair Babcock asked if this is true even if the tentative map is redesigned with fewer units. He responded that less units is a possibility but the R-2 district would still result in a 1,400 square feet house. He added that the FAR from R1.7 and R-2 will result in a small townhouse units with less than 1,400 square feet based on lot minimums and that the proposed project would have minimal impacts to the neighbors. He noted that the city's FAR requirement is very stringent for both zoning districts, therefore he is asking for FAR deviations to build a normal and achievable three-bedroom house.

Vice Chair Babcock noted that the recently approved project on Mary Manor has an overall 53% FAR with individual lot as high as 77% to 78% with lot coverage of 43% and asked staff what is the percentage of lot that has the 77%-78% FAR. Staff responded that it is approximately one third of the development. Mr. Quaglia added that 63% is the average overall for the entire Mary Manor project.

Comm. Chu asked the applicant about one of the recommendations to increase the side setbacks two feet per unit, which could mean reducing the number units. Mr. Quaglia noted that the back third of the house meets the requirements and that only a portion of the building does not meet the requirement.

Comm. Chu commented that parcels 22 and 26 with a requirement to increase it to 11 feet setbacks would appear to be boxy. He suggested that in order to achieve additional square footage is to design a basement, which is not counted in the total square footage. Mr. Quaglia responded that basements cannot be made on small lots and it is not economically feasible and would be very difficult to achieve. Further, he stated that to design a basement for storage would be OK but not for habitable condition.

Furthermore, Comm. Chu asked the applicant that given the request for increased setbacks what would be the FAR for the project. Mr. Quaglia responded that he is concerned with the effect to the architecture, however, he has not conducted further analysis relative to the increased setbacks. He added that he is more concerned with the downsize to 1400 square feet and that he prefers to build a 3-bedroom house and not a townhouse design.

Comm. Chu asked the applicant if he reduced the number of units from 35 to 32 what would be the end result. Mr. Quaglia responded that if one unit is eliminated, it would increase the width of each of lot by two feet and would not significantly alter the FAR.

Amy Hewitt, resident and church member, stated the church's mission and its strong desire to continue to help the community and noted that because of economic condition, certain services were discontinued. The sale of the building could allow the church to continue to serve the community. She was impressed with the applicant and his diligence and his desire to maintain the tranquility of the neighborhood. She added that the goal for the size is not so much for affordability but rather achievability and that the three-bedroom floor plan is nicely designed. She concluded that she is comfortable with the project and recommended approval as submitted.

Stan Freitas, Senior Pastor of El Camino Christian Church, applauded the city's desire to provide affordable housing. He stated that by supporting the project, it will allow the church to continue to service the community, low income residents, single parents and those who are in need. He urged the Commission to approve the project to continue the service.

Dave Sanders, church representative, urged the Commission to support the project.

Tom Quaglia, thanked staff for the analysis and assistance. He reiterated his proposal and asked for R1.7/PD with setbacks and deviations as submitted.

Comm. Lee asked Mr. Quaglia how much would it cost to subsidize four Below Market Rate units. He responded a little over a million dollar.

Comm. Swegles asked staff if there were any attached unit to the Mary Manor development. Staff responded that they are all detached units.

Vice Chair Babcock supported the applicant's request of R1.7/PD. She noted that R-2 would be creating a higher density in a middle of a single-family neighborhood. She added that the project has very desirable features meeting the housing goal and provides affordable housing to middle range income household. She liked the landscaping, the front façade, architecture and the design that is supported by the neighborhood.

Comm. Chu concurred with Vice Chair Babcock and he liked the streetscape and with the additional parking and the conditions, it would improve the open space. He concluded that overall it is a good project for a transition area.

Comm. Moylan commented that it is an attractive project and agreed with the general plan amendment, special development and tentative map with the exception of the zoning. He agreed with staff that as designed the project should be approved with an R-2/PD zoning. He could not support the motion since all actions were bundled together. He noted for the record that he did not support the Mary Manor project, which is a mistake and with approving this project would invoke another mistake. He urged Commission not to support the motion.

Comm. Satterlee commented that it is a difficult issue but noted that she would like to protect the integrity of R1.7/PD, the 50% FAR in small lot developments. She noted that it is critical to have a variety of housing but it is reasonable to make smaller houses desirable. She expressed her concerns about invoking a precedent set by another developer and comparing project that is dissimilar. She urged her fellow commissioners not to set a wrong precedent but to exercise independent judgement on a case by case basis on its own merits. She did not support the motion.

Comm. Swegles asked staff if the Mary Manor project provided BMR units. Staff said no as it was rezoned to R1.7/PD which is not subject to BMR requirements.

Chair Simon commented on the general plan, zoning and the intention. He added that the controversy lies on the change of how the neighborhood would look and whether the alley concept would be acceptable including the cost of the space, upkeep of the streetscapes with trees and parking the cars in the back. He noted that current codes may not fully address this type of design and felt that it should. He supported the motion.

Return to RTC# 03-102