CITY OF SUNNYVALE
REPORT
Planning Commission
May 9, 2005
|
SUBJECT: |
2005-0187 – Ron Dick [Applicant]: Application for related proposals on a 7,500 square-foot site located at 485 East McKinley Avenue (near Central Ave) in an R-2 (Low-Medium Density Residential) Zoning District; |
|
Introduction of an Ordinance |
Rezone from R-2 (Low-Medium Density Residential) Zoning District to R-2/P-D (Low-Medium Density Residential/Planned Development) Zoning District; |
|
Motion |
Special Development Permit to construct two single-family homes, and |
|
Motion |
Parcel Map to subdivide one lot into two lots. |
REPORT IN BRIEF
|
Existing Site Conditions
|
Duplex
|
Surrounding Land Uses |
|
North |
Duplex |
|
South |
Single Family Home |
|
East |
Single Family Home |
|
West |
Condominium
|
|
Issues
|
Floor Area Ratio |
|
Environmental Status |
A Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines.
|
|
Staff Recommendation |
Approve with conditions |
Click here for map.
PROJECT DATA TABLE
|
|
EXISTING |
PROPOSED |
REQUIRED/
PERMITTED |
|
General Plan |
Residential Low Medium Density |
Same |
Residential Low- Medium Density |
|
Zoning District |
R-2 |
R-2/PD |
By Rezone |
|
Lot Size (s.f.) ** |
7,500 |
Lot 1: 2,980
Lot 2: 4,520 |
8,000 min. |
|
Gross Floor Area (s.f.) |
2,512 |
4,355 |
No max. |
|
Lot Coverage (%) |
33% |
34% |
40% max. |
|
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) |
33% |
58% |
Small Lot Dev.
Guideline of 50%
overall
|
|
No. of Units |
2 |
2 |
2 max. |
|
Density (units/acre) |
11.6 |
11.6 |
12 max. |
|
Bedrooms/Unit |
3 |
2 – Front Unit
3 – Rear Unit
|
N/A |
|
Unit Sizes (s.f.) |
Front Unit – 1,056
Rear Unit – 1,456 |
Front Unit – 2,048
Rear Unit – 2,305 |
N/A |
|
No. of Buildings On-Site |
1 |
2 |
Per Special Development Permit |
|
Building Height (ft.) |
N/A |
27’1” |
30’ max. |
|
No. of Stories |
1 |
2 |
2 max. |
|
Setbacks (First/Second Facing Property) |
|
· Front |
18’ |
20’/25’ |
20’/25’ min. |
|
· Left Side ** |
10’ |
4’/8’
(3’ setback for front unit) |
4’/7’ min.
(total 12/18”) |
|
· Right Side |
6’ |
4’/8’ |
4’/7’ min.
(total 12/18”) |
|
· Rear |
30’6” |
20’ |
10’/20 min. |
|
Landscaping (sq. ft.) |
|
· Total Landscaping |
Unknown |
3,027 |
1,700 min. |
|
· Landscaping/Unit |
Unknown |
1,513.5 (avg.) |
850 min. |
|
· Usable Open Space/Unit |
Unknown |
1,082 (avg.) |
500 min. |
|
Parking |
|
· Total Spaces |
4 |
8 |
8 min. |
|
· Covered Spaces |
2 |
4 |
4 min. |
|
· Driveway Aisle Width (ft.) |
10’ |
10’ |
10’ min. |
**Starred items indicate deviations from Sunnyvale Municipal Code requirements.
Description of Proposed Project
The proposed project is for the subdivision of one lot into two lots and construction of two new single family homes. Additionally, the applicant proposes to Rezone the site from R-2 (Residential Low-Medium Density) to R-2/PD Residential Low-Medium Density/Planned Development). The existing homes will be demolished.
Background
The project was originally noticed for the April 25th Planning Commission meeting. A continuance to the May 9th public hearing was requested and granted to allow additional time for the applicant to redesign the project. Due to the request to rezone the site, the project requires final review by the City Council. A City council hearing is scheduled for June 14th, 2005.
Previous Actions on the Site: There are no previous planning applications related to the subject site.
Environmental Review
A Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines. An initial study has determined that the proposed project would not create any significant environmental impacts (see Attachment C, Initial Study).
Rezoning
Change Under Consideration: Rezone from R-2 (Low-Medium Density Residential) to R-2/PD (Low-Medium Density/Planned Development).
Discussion of Rezoning: The PD Combining District enables the consideration of deviations from the Code and/or imposition of more restrictive requirements. The surrounding properties are predominately developed with either apartments or varying types of multi-unit development.
Special Development Permit
Site Layout: The proposed layout of the site consists of two homes on two separate lots. One lot is flag-shaped to allow a separate driveway access to the rear unit. The two units face the street and consist of a similar layout. Most setback requirements are met with the exception of the side yard setbacks of the front unit. Due to the configuration of the lot line to allow driveway access, the left side setback is not met. The actual setback to the neighboring condominium use is 13 feet. (See Site Plan on Attachment D for more detail).
The gross floor area of each unit is approximately 2,048 and 2,305 square feet not including the basement. The front unit contains two bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms, while the rear unit contains three bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms. Each of the units contains a basement area that allows for additional living area. The basement area is not used to calculate the floor area ratio for the homes.
A City of Sunnyvale policy for small lot development is that the overall Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) should not exceed 50%. The proposed development would result in a total F.A.R. of 58% (basement not included). However, staff notes that total porch area of the two units adds an additional 2% to the overall F.A.R of the site. If this area is discounted the overall F.A.R. for the site is slightly under 56% F.A.R. Staff also notes that a similar neighboring flag lot style development (northwest) that was built approximately six years ago maintains approximately 63% F.AR. Nevertheless, staff feels that further reduction of the project is justified in an effort to meet the 50% F.A.R policy standard for small lot development. Condition of Approval #1F requires a maximum 50% F.A.R. for the site.
Undergrounding: Condition of Approval #10A requires that overhead lines on McKinley Avenue be placed underground as required by new development.
The following Guidelines were considered in analysis of the project site design.
|
Design Policy or Guideline
(Site Layout) |
Comments |
|
Single Family Home Design Techniques 3.1 Neighborhood Patterns
Respect neighborhood home orientation and setback patterns. |
The orientation of the new homes is similar to other development in the neighborhood. The setbacks proposed for the new homes are also compatible to those found in the area. |
|
Single Family Home Design Techniques 2.2.3 Design homes to respect their immediate neighbors. |
The second story of the homes exceeds the minimum side yard setback requirements by providing eight feet. Additionally, there are no second story windows located on the left side of unit 1 or the right side of unit 2. |
|
Single Family Home Design Techniques 3.4 Second Floors
Design second floors to complement first floor forms and minimize their visual impact. |
The second floors of the homes are adequately setback from the first story and have been reduced in scale to create an improved visual impact from the public street. |
Architecture: The proposed architecture borrows from some of the elements that are utilized within the neighborhood. The design is similar to a project located directly northwest of the site at 468 Bryan Avenue. The homes will be constructed of wood siding and composition roof material. Each home contains a porch area that extends from the front of the house. Gable features are included within the second story of each house. Since the Planning Commission Study Session, the design of the front unit has been modified, in an effort to reduce the overall floor area of the project. The loss of a bedroom located at the front of the structure and reduced area at other portions of the building are reflected in the revised elevations on Page 4 of Attachment D. The applicant and staff felt that eliminating the porch area to help reduce floor area would significantly reduce one of the valuable aesthetic aspects of the architecture.
The following Guidelines were considered in the analysis of the project architecture.
|
Design Policy or Guideline
Architecture |
Comments |
|
Single Family Home Design Techniques 3.7 Materials
Use materials that are compatible with the neighborhood. |
The proposed design and materials of the new homes would be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. |
|
Single Family Home Design Techniques 3.3 Entries
Provide an entry porch if that is a common feature of homes in the neighborhood. Match the design to the style of the home. |
Each home provides an entry porch feature that is compatible to the design of the home. Rather than a bold gable entry feature, the entry areas are recessed under an eave line; similar to other homes within the neighborhood. |
Landscaping: The R-2 Zoning District requires 850 s.f. per unit of landscaping and 500 s.f. of useable open space. The proposed landscaping and useable open space exceeds the minimum required (See “Project Data Table” on page 3 for more detail). All area that is not utilized by paving needed for driveway, back-out and parking area is landscaped. Although not noted on the current site plan, landscaping along the left side of the lot will need to be replaced by paving needed for the ten-foot driveway.
There is one protected heritage tree (cedar) located in the landscaped strip near the sidewalk. Protected trees are those that measure 38 inches or greater in circumference when measured at four feet from the ground. This tree will be preserved.
Parking/Circulation: The site will meet parking standards by providing a two-car garage and two uncovered spaces for each unit. Other parking configuration and driveway layouts were considered with the proposal, including a garage located at the rear of unit one or positioned at the opposite side of the home. The current layout enables preservation of the heritage tree as well as a valuable rear yard area for the front unit.
|
Design Policy or Guideline
Parking |
Comments |
|
Single Family Design Guidelines
3.2 Parking
Design garages and driveways to
be compatible with the neighborhood. |
The layout of the front loading garages for each unit is compatible with other properties in the neighborhood. |
Compliance with Development Standards/Guidelines: The proposed development meets most development standards including lot coverage, parking, landscaping, and open space. The project does not meet minimum lot size or the side yard setbacks for Unit 1. Minimum lot size is a common deviation needed for development of the individual ownership units. Staff also notes that the setback deviation is due the adjusted lot line needed for the driveway access to the rear unit. The new home unit is positioned approximately 13 feet from the multifamily property to the west.
At 58% F.A.R., the project exceeds the Small Lot Development guideline of 50% F.A.R. The project does attain the guideline for a minimum 15-foot dimension for open space for over 80% of the defined open space. In the R-2 Zoning District, single family homes greater than 45% F.A.R. are permitted with Planning Commission Design Review approval.
Expected Impact on the Surroundings: The site is already developed with two homes and no traffic impact is expected from the redevelopment of the site. The two-story homes will cause a new visual impact to the area. Staff notes that many homes nearby are comprised of two stories and that the new development is not considered out of character with neighboring development. The surrounding neighborhood contains a range of densities from single family homes to multi-family apartments and condominiums including two-story structures.
Tentative Map
Description of Tentative Map: The proposed Tentative Map subdivides the lot into two lots. The lot sizes proposed are 2,980 s.f. and 4,520 s.f. The minimum required lot size in the R-2 Zoning District is 8,000 square feet. The lot sizes proposed would be included as a deviation as part of the Special Development Permit. The subdivision would create a flag shaped lot similar to those created at two locations within the neighborhood; specifically at 427 & 429 E. McKinley and 468 & 472 Bryan Avenue. Access to the rear unit would be provided through a driveway along the west side of the property.
No fiscal impacts other than normal fees and taxes are expected.
Planning Commission Study Session: An earlier design for the project was reviewed by Planning Commission at a Study Session on April 11, 2005. Many of the comments related to the overall size of the two structures. The proposal was originally proposed at an overall F.A.R. of approximately 62%. Additional comments related to the proposed architecture of the project. The applicant has reduced the scale of the units and modified the design as noted in the staff report.