PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 02/23/04

 2004-0018- Application for a Design Review on a 5,482 square foot site to demolish the existing house and allow a 3,058 square foot 2-story house at 56% FAR where 45% is allowed without Planning Commission Review.  The property is located at 694 Conway Road in an R-2 (Low-Medium Density Residential) Zoning District.  (APN: 202-06-015) CC

Christine Cannizzo, Project Planner, presented the staff report.  She summarized the proposed application highlighting the use, site layout and architecture.  She noted that in order to address privacy concerns expressed by a neighbor Condition of Approval #3 is recommended relative to the placement of the windows. She noted a correction to the staff report that there is one protected tree requiring two additional Conditions of Approval – 1) Condition of Approval #7 – that the applicant shall provide an arborist report for the walnut tree on the western fence line of the rear yard to justify removal.  If removal cannot be justified, a tree protection plan shall be provided.  The  arborist report and the tree protection plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit; and, 2)  Condition of Approval #8 – that the applicant shall provide one street tree.  Tree type and size shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit.

Vice Chair Moylan clarified with staff whether the street is a private road. Ms. Ryan responded yes.  She added that the road was previously sub-standard and not adequate access for emergency vehicles, therefore about 20 years ago further additions to the homes were not allowed until the road was made safe.  Recently, the residents formed an assessment district for road improvement. Originally the site was addressed to Conway, changed to Hollenbeck, and recently changed back to Conway Road.

Further, Vice Chair Moylan asked staff whether the lot that was divided into three lots that was approved a couple of years ago was in the assessment district.  Staff said yes.

Finally, he stated that during his site visit, he noticed a shed in the next door’s property and asked staff to explain the privacy concern. Staff responded that the property owner indicated it is actually an accessory living unit.

Chair Babcock asked staff when the original house was built and expressed concerns that it may be historical and that there could be other houses on Conway Road that are being historic. She stated that the subject house could be the last adobe house in Sunnyvale. Ms. Ryan responded that the house is not listed in the Heritage Resource list and has never come up or identified as potential Heritage Resource.  Ms. Ryan briefly explained the recent process to updating the Heritage Resource list.

Further, Chair Babcock confirmed that the front door would not be visible to the street but rather the garage door and a courtyard gate.  Staff said yes.

Chair Babcock commented that the design is not typical for a single family neighborhood but more often seen in Bahl Patio homes.  Ms. Ryan stated that courtyard style is common in Eichler homes.  She added that there a fair number of other examples in Sunnyvale where the courtyard gate functions as the front door. Further, she added that the courtyard design is not common to this particular neighborhood.

Comm. Simons commented that at one point in time, the Commission was given an opportunity to review relocation of a Heritage home. Ms. Ryan recalled that the house was on in the Heritage Resource inventory. Because of the changes in State and case law, the City now requires any property that is in the Heritage Resource Inventory to complete a historical evaluation before demolition of the home is considered.

Further, Comm. Simons asked if there was any precedent to condition a property to conduct an evaluation even if the house is not listed in the historical resource inventory.  Ms. Ryan responded that she can only recall one property where an evaluation was requested by staff because the property is 100 years old and there was a potential historical resources.  She added that there is a program that reviews and identifies potential heritage resources.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

Tom Luan, applicant, availed himself to Planning Commission’s questions. He stated that the property is about 70 years old and is in poor condition.  He added that he addressed the concerns expressed by the neighborhood, such as window placement, were incorporated in the proposed design.  He presented a powerpoint presentation of the site, design and the neighborhood.  He stated that the design meets the development standards and would bring the home in compliance for the required 20 feet front yard setback and that the application supports the same motivation and goal of the General Plan on improving the neighborhood and enhancing the streetscape.  He noted that the window on the second floor is along the passage way.  However, if the neighbor objects to the window, he is willing to modify the window.  He urged the Commission to approve his application.

Jim Young, resident, expressed concerns about the possible damage on Conway Road from the construction of this property. He stated that the road was upgraded at a considerable cost to the residents and asked that the integrity of the road be kept.  He asked the Commission to impose a condition requiring the contractor to be responsible to any damage on the street caused by the construction and be liable for two years after the repair.

Vice Chair Moylan asked Mr. Young whether the road was upgraded to handle heavy equipment and fire trucks.  Mr. Young responded that the road was built as any other street in Sunnyvale.  However, he strongly expressed his concern that tractors and heavy trucks on a hot day could tear up the asphalt and the day after day wear and tear including leaky diesel fuel on the road.  He asked that the contractor be responsible for any potential damage for a period of 2-3 years after repair as the street was built by the residents.  The neighborhood would like to keep the integrity of Conway Road as much as possible.

Molly Klug, resident, stated that she led the effort in developing a beautiful Conway Road.  She reinforced Mr. Young’s request that extra care must be practiced to keep the integrity of the road. She added that the application is the beginning of future developments and there would be more development on Conway Road.  She stated that homeowners spent a lot of money to get to where the road is now.  The money collected will be used for long term repairs and would like all homeowners who are developing their lots to take responsibility in maintaining the quality and integrity of the street.

Comm. Simons asked about other projects less than 45% FAR and whether they were conditioned to repair the street. Staff responded that no such conditions have been imposed. Comm. Simons asked staff if there were any requirements imposed in the past for other private road maintenance.  Ms. Ryan responded none that she could recall.

Comm. Klein asked whether the $100 a year is a contract amongst the neighborhood  or just a promise and whether there is a neighborhood association to effect the maintenance of the road. Ms. Klug responded that a majority of the homeowners did not want to create a homeowners’ association but by the assessment district through the property tax, the fund is used for the road maintenance.

Vice Chair Moylan commented that essentially the neighborhood already has a neighborhood association with the City acting as the manager for the road maintenance.  Ms. Klug responded that the idea is for the City to hold the funds and when needed, they could use the funds for road maintenance.

Vice Chair Moylan stated that it appears that the intent of the neighborhood is for the City to commence the collection of funds and eventually, the neighborhood would take this responsibility to manage the private road maintenance.

Comm. Hungerford commented that it appears that the $100 annual assessment fee is for general weathering, wear and tear to the road as opposed to harm that could be assigned to a particular homeowner or use.  Ms. Klug responded yes and the very reason the fees are so low without considering immediate need but was intended that five years out to have the fund be available for repaving of the road.

Paul Quan, neighbor, left side, expressed his concerns about the placement of the double glass door or window located at the patio area on the second floor facing his side of the house and the shading effect to his house.  He demonstrated the shading effect of the proposed house.  He commented that the house was designed more oriented towards the left side and recommended that the house be more equally placed in the middle of the lot to address the shading.

Comm. Klein asked the speaker whether he is also concerned with the balcony on the second floor.  Mr. Quan responded that the balcony appears to only be decorative and that he is only concerned about the window invading his privacy.

Vice Chair Moylan pointed out that Condition of Approval #3 would address the placement of the windows and asked whether this is acceptable.  Mr. Quan responded yes and that he confident that staff’s review of the window placement would address his privacy concern.

Tom Luan, applicant, addressed that the setback requirement is needed because the lot is narrow and by putting the garage to the right hand side of the lot, there would be an egress problem. The redesign is more to the left in meeting with the requirements. 

Vice Chair Moylan asked the applicant whether the house could be centered as suggested by the neighbor and whether this is doable.  Mr. Luan deferred the answer to Mr. Chi Hong.

Chi Hong, architect, responded that as standard practice, during the design, meeting the minimum requirement is first considered and was followed by creating a courtyard element.  Placing the house at the center of the lot would create an egress problem on the garage side.

Vice Chair Moylan further asked if the design is made symmetrically, would the house get in the way of the walnut tree.  Mr. Hong said yes.  He added that the second floor door is only a pass way and not a room and designed as a decorative element.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Comm. Fussell commented that the project would add value to the neighborhood which starts the foundation on the improvement of the neighborhood.  He shared the concerns expressed by the neighbors about the maintenance of the road but could not see how this application could be conditioned to address this concern.  He was excited to see the project developed.

Vice Chair Moylan commented that the project will improve the property value of the neighborhood.  He was pleased that the front yard setback would be 20 feet.  He also understood the concerns of the neighborhood and stated that maybe it is time for the neighborhood to create a homeowners’ association to effect the maintenance of the road.  He concluded that it is a nice project.

Comm. Simons supported the motion. He was enthusiastic about the development of the neighborhood and stated that every development would be a positive addition.

Ms. Ryan stated that the decision is final unless appealed to City Council within the 15-day appeal period.